Lise S. Parent

This endorsement addresses a request for costs following the consensual withdrawal of a Motion to Change filed by the applicant and a Response to Motion to Change filed by the respondent.

The respondent sought substantial indemnity costs, alleging unreasonable and bad faith behaviour by the applicant.

The court denied the respondent's request, ordering each party to bear their own costs.

The court found that both parties were quick to litigate rather than adhere to their separation agreement's dispute resolution mechanism.

Furthermore, the respondent's costs claim was inflated by time spent on incorrectly pleaded claims for custody, access, and life insurance, which were beyond the court's jurisdiction or improperly sought.

In this high-conflict custody and access case, the applicant mother sought sole custody of two children, alleging abuse and neglect by the respondent father and his common-law partner.

The respondent father and his partner sought sole custody, claiming the children were victims of abuse while in the mother's care.

After an extensive trial involving multiple witnesses and expert evidence, the court found that the respondent father and his partner had engaged in parental alienation of the children against their mother.

The court determined that while the mother had used inappropriate physical discipline on one historical occasion, the allegations of ongoing abuse and neglect were not substantiated.

The court found that the respondent father and his partner had deliberately created a narrative of abuse, exposed the children to litigation details, relocated the family to distance the children from their mother, and systematically undermined the mother-child relationship.

The court reversed custody to the mother and ordered supervised access for the father and his partner.

This is a costs decision in a child protection matter under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Children's Aid Society brought a protection application and subsequently moved for summary judgment, which was denied by the court.

The respondent parents sought costs against the Society, alleging unreasonable and unfair conduct.

The court dismissed the costs requests, finding that while the Society was unsuccessful on the summary judgment motion, the threshold for awarding costs against a child protection agency in such circumstances had not been met.

The court applied the established framework requiring a showing that the Society acted in a patently unfair and indefensible manner, which was not established on the facts.

A motion by the Children's Aid Society of the Region of Peel seeking temporary care and custody of a child (D.D.) born in 2012.

The child suffered severe injuries on July 19, 2018, while in the care of the mother, inflicted by the mother's ex-partner.

The Society sought placement with the father under supervision with discretionary access to the mother.

The mother opposed the motion and sought the return of the child to her care.

The court granted the Society's motion, finding that the mother's significant lack of judgment in maintaining a relationship with the perpetrator, combined with historical concerns regarding her mental health and parenting abilities, meant the child could not be adequately protected in her care.

The child was placed in the temporary care and custody of the father subject to the Society's supervision, with access to the mother to remain supervised and at the Society's discretion.

A motion by the Children's Aid Society seeking temporary care and custody of a child with the father in Trinidad and Tobago, subject to supervision and specific terms and conditions.

The mother and step-father opposed the motion and sought the return of the child to their care.

The court denied both the Society's motion and the mother and step-father's request, finding that while there were credible concerns regarding the mother and step-father's parenting, the evidence did not establish that placement with the father would adequately protect the child given the father's limited relationship with the child and the child's significant behavioural needs.

A family law trial concerning custody, access, and child support for three young children.

The applicant sought sole custody and primary residence with specified access for the respondent.

The respondent sought sole custody with supervised access for the applicant and child support from the applicant.

The trial proceeded in the absence of the respondent despite proper notice.

The court granted sole custody and primary residence to the applicant based on the applicant's evidence, affidavits from collateral witnesses, and a report from the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The court found that joint custody was inappropriate given the parties' inability to communicate effectively and evidence of the respondent's harassing behavior during access exchanges.

Child support was ordered based on the respondent's declared income.

The Children's Aid Society of the Region of Peel brought a motion for an order placing a newborn child in extended society care pending determination of a protection application seeking Crown wardship.

The child had been apprehended two days after birth due to concerns regarding the mother's mental health issues, transiency, parenting ability, and prior child protection involvement, as well as concerns regarding the father's substance use and inability to present a care plan.

The mother sought return of the child to her care, asserting she had addressed her mental health issues and secured appropriate accommodations.

The court found that the Society had met its burden under section 94(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, establishing reasonable grounds to believe the child would suffer harm if returned to the mother's care, even with conditions.

The motion was granted, placing the child in the interim care of the Society with access at the Society's discretion.

The respondent father sought an order deeming or converting his response to the applicant mother's motion to change into a proper application for equal parenting time.

The applicant mother opposed the conversion and brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss the respondent's custody claims.

The court found that while it had authority under the Family Law Rules to convert or deem pleadings, the criteria for exercising such discretion had not been met because the pleadings were incomplete and would require amendment, thereby creating additional costs, delay, and procedural complexity.

The court denied the conversion request, which resulted in no claims being properly before the court, and therefore dismissed all related motions.

The applicant sought costs following a successful motion on jurisdiction.

The respondent opposed the motion and sought a transfer to another region.

The court granted the applicant's motion and denied the respondent's motion.

Following the decision, the parties consented to a temporary order for access and child support.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis rather than full recovery, considering the absence of unreasonable conduct by the respondent, the lack of an offer to settle, and the respondent's limited financial means.

Paternal grandparents sought to be added as parties to child protection proceedings under Rule 7(5) of the Family Law Rules and section 39(3) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The children were apprehended due to unexplained injuries sustained by the younger child while in parental care.

The court applied the five-factor test from Children's Aid Society of London and Middlesex v. H(S) and denied the motion.

While the grandparents had a legal interest in the matter, the court found that adding them as parties was not required in the children's best interests, would not unduly delay proceedings, was not necessary to determine the issues, and critically, the grandparents could not present a viable plan as they remained part of the criminal investigation into the child's injuries.

The grandparents also failed to meet the threshold requirement of section 39(3) as they had not continuously cared for the children in the six months preceding the hearing.

The Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion to terminate a supervision order granted on May 31, 2016, which had placed a child in the care of the father.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking the return of the child to her care.

The father and the child's counsel supported the Society's request.

The court found that the child had transitioned well into the father's care, the home was stable, there were no ongoing protection concerns, and the child did not wish to meet with child protection workers or counsel.

The court granted the Society's motion and terminated the supervision order, finding no genuine issue for trial and that termination was in the child's best interests.

A costs decision following a two-day trial in a family law matter concerning custody, access, and child support.

The applicant sought costs of $40,000 (including legal fees of $34,398, disbursements of $1,000, and HST of $4,602).

The court found the respondent acted in bad faith throughout the litigation, which lasted six years.

However, the court determined that full recovery of costs was not appropriate given the complexity and duration of the matter, and the applicant's own conduct contributed to delays.

The court applied Rule 18(14) regarding settlement offers and found the applicant's offer of settlement met the required conditions.

The court awarded costs of $33,000, payable within 60 days.

A grandmother sought access to her two grandchildren and annual contact information regarding the children's parents and their care.

The parents opposed the applications and sought dismissal with costs.

The court applied the three-part test from Giansante v. DiChiara to determine whether a positive grandparent-grandchild relationship existed, whether the parents' decision imperilled that relationship, and whether the parents acted arbitrarily.

The court found no pre-existing positive relationship, as contact had been limited in frequency, duration, and location, and was primarily facilitated by the father's attempt to reconcile with his mother.

The court dismissed both applications, finding the parents' decision to terminate access was made in the best interests of the children and was not arbitrary.

A family law matter concerning custody, access, and child support for two children born to unmarried parents who separated in 2011.

The applicant mother sought exclusive custody, regular visitation rights for the father at her discretion with five days' notice, child support according to guidelines, and contribution to extraordinary expenses.

The respondent father sought equal parenting time or alternatively three weekends per month, and a reduction in child support based on excessive hardship due to other financial obligations.

The court granted the mother's requests for discretionary access, rejected the father's excessive hardship claim due to insufficient evidence, and ordered child support retroactively and prospectively according to guidelines, with contribution to childcare expenses.

A costs endorsement following motions heard on December 21, 2016, in a family law matter.

The applicant mother sought to vary an existing access order to provide for supervised access and specific telephone access terms.

The respondent father sought to expand his access and remove conditions.

The court granted the applicant's relief in part and denied the respondent's motion entirely.

The applicant sought costs of $4,977.67 on a partial recovery basis, while the respondent agreed costs should be awarded but proposed $1,500.00.

The court awarded costs of $3,700.00 inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable in three instalments over time, considering the respondent's financial circumstances and the reasonableness of the time and expenses incurred.

In this highly contested family law motion, the court addressed competing disclosure and procedural requests from both parents in a custody and access dispute involving allegations of sexual abuse.

The respondent sought production of communications with experts and the applicant's mental health records, while the applicant sought questioning of the respondent and an expert, as well as Crown disclosure.

The court granted partial relief to both parties, balancing the need for fair trial preparation against privacy interests and litigation efficiency.

The court approved mutual questioning of the parties but denied questioning of the jointly retained expert, granted production of the applicant's mental health records to the respondent's counsel (with restrictions), denied production of privileged communications with experts, and ordered a structured timeline for Crown disclosure.

The applicant mother sought to implement recommendations from an Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) report, including sole custody and supervised access for the respondent father.

The respondent father sought to expand his unsupervised access and remove conditions from an existing temporary order.

The court found exceptional circumstances existed warranting implementation of supervised access and restricted telephone contact recommendations, but denied the mother's request for sole custody and other non-access relief.

The father's motion for expanded unsupervised access was also denied.

The respondent brought a motion to change a child support order, seeking to terminate support for an adult child over the age of majority who was receiving Ontario Disability Support Plan (ODSP) payments.

The applicant opposed the motion and sought dismissal.

The court found that the receipt of ODSP payments constituted a material change in circumstances, making the standard table approach under section 3(2)(a) of the Child Support Guidelines inappropriate.

Applying section 3(2)(b), the court reduced child support from $514.00 to $275.00 per month effective January 1, 2016, rather than terminating it entirely.

The court declined to make a retroactive adjustment to April 1, 2014.

The Children's Aid Society of the Region of Peel brought a motion seeking temporary care and custody orders for three children under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

The mother consented to placement of all three children with the maternal grandparents.

The father of two of the children sought placement in his own care.

The court determined that both the maternal grandparents and the father qualified as "persons in charge" under the Act.

However, the court found that placement with the father was in the children's best interests, as it would minimize ongoing parental conflict and prioritize placement with a parent over grandparents.

The mother had breached an existing domestic court order by placing the children with the maternal grandparents without consulting the father.

The Children's Aid Society of the Region of Peel brought motions pursuant to section 74 of the Child and Family Services Act seeking orders for the production of records from ten third parties and institutions regarding two children and their mother.

The children had been apprehended and were in the temporary care of the Society.

The mother opposed the production of records, arguing they were not relevant to the issues of harm and that disclosure would cause emotional harm to the children.

The court granted the Society's motions, finding that the records were relevant and necessary to determine whether the children were in need of protection and to assess appropriate disposition.

The court found that the children's consent to disclosure, the lack of opposition from third parties, and the mother's prior consent to some records outweighed privacy concerns.