L. Madsen

The applicant sought to confirm a 2013 provisional child support order from the United Kingdom under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act.

The provisional order set arrears at £7,000 for two adult children and ongoing support of £50 per week for a third adult child attending post-secondary education.

The Superior Court of Justice declined to confirm the order, finding that the respondent had already paid the arrears in full through the Family Responsibility Office.

The court also refused to confirm the ongoing support for the third child due to a lack of evidence regarding his continued enrollment in post-secondary studies.

The Children's Aid Society sought a temporary order to keep a prematurely born child in its care.

The child was apprehended shortly after birth due to the father's history of sexual offences against children and current serious criminal charges, as well as the mother's lack of insight into the risk posed by the father.

Although a transition plan to return the child to the mother was initiated, it was halted when the mother refused to cooperate with Society workers and denied them full access to her home.

The court found a real possibility of harm if the child was returned to the mother and ordered the child to remain in the temporary care of the Society.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order for extended society care without access for a 22-month-old child who had been in care since birth.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking a six-month supervision order.

The Society argued that the mother's longstanding mental health issues and inconsistent access justified the order.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that genuine issues for trial existed, particularly given the Society's acknowledgment that the mother's mental health had been 'fairly stable' since early 2018 and conflicting evidence regarding the quality of her access visits.

The court emphasized the highly cautionary approach required for summary judgment in child protection cases.

The Children's Aid Society sought an order for extended society care without access for two children who had been in care for 27 months.

The mother sought the return of the children or joint care with the maternal grandmother.

The court first determined that the children were First Nations but had no identified band.

The court found the children continued to be in need of protection due to the mother's transience, untreated mental health issues, and high-conflict behaviour.

Concluding that no less disruptive alternatives were viable, the court ordered extended society care.

Access was denied as it was not in the children's best interests and would likely impair adoption opportunities.

Following motions regarding child access, contempt, and a publication ban, both parties sought costs.

The father had brought a motion to change access after being criminally charged, and a contempt motion which he later withdrew.

The mother had sought a publication ban and severely restricted access.

The court found divided success, noting the father's contempt motion was inappropriate and the mother's position on access was unreasonable.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The applicant sought an order to reserve the determination of costs for a previous motion regarding daycare pick-up times until his leave to appeal that decision was complete.

He argued that assessing costs while a leave to appeal was pending would be prejudicial.

The court dismissed the motion, noting that the Family Law Rules require prompt costs determinations and that under the Rules of Civil Procedure, a stay pending appeal does not prevent the assessment of costs absent an unusual fact situation.

The maternal grandmother appealed an order granting the foster parent expanded rights of participation and disclosure in a focused hearing regarding the grandmother's access to the child, who had been made a Crown Ward.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the motions judge reasonably exercised her discretion and properly applied the relevant factors in determining that the foster parent's participation was in the child's best interests.

The applicant brought a motion for specified financial disclosure from a company owned by the respondent's parents, where the respondent was currently employed, and for the respondent's father to attend for questioning.

The applicant alleged the respondent was shielding income to reduce his child and spousal support obligations.

The court granted the motion in part, ordering the non-party company to produce client lists and financial statements, and ordering the respondent's father to attend for questioning, finding it would be unfair for the applicant to proceed to the motion to change without this information.

The applicant provided sperm to the respondent and her same-sex partner to conceive a child, with an oral understanding that the applicant would parent the child.

After conception, the respondent and her partner decided to keep the child.

The applicant sought a declaration of sole parentage and sole custody.

The court found the oral agreement did not meet the strict requirements for a valid surrogacy agreement under the newly amended Children's Law Reform Act.

However, using its parens patriae jurisdiction, the court declared the applicant, the respondent, and the respondent's partner to all be legal parents of the child.

The court awarded sole custody to the respondent with a shared parenting schedule, and ordered the child's name to include names chosen by both the applicant and the respondent.

Following a seven-day trial on the issue of regular access, the court determined the appropriate parenting schedule for a three-year-old child.

The mother, who had primary residency by agreement, sought to limit the father's access to two overnights every fourteen days, citing past incidents of domestic violence and concerns about his parenting.

The court found that while three incidents of violence did occur during the relationship, the father is a capable and loving parent.

Applying the maximum contact principle, the court ordered an expanded access schedule for the father, including mid-week overnights, tailored to accommodate his continental shift work schedule.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a final order, seeking joint custody, a modified access schedule, shared transportation, and police enforcement of access.

The applicant mother opposed the changes and sought a reduction in access due to the father's inconsistent attendance.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the breakdown of access.

The court maintained sole custody with the mother on consent, adjusted the access schedule to avoid Friday traffic, and ordered the father to remain responsible for transportation.

The requests for police enforcement, child support reduction, and sealing the file were dismissed.

The applicant father brought a motion for temporary custody, primary residence, increased parenting time, and support.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion for retroactive and ongoing support, and an irrevocable life insurance beneficiary designation.

The court declined to make a temporary custody order or to impute income to either party due to conflicting and insufficient evidence, reserving those issues for trial.

The court incrementally increased the father's parenting time to respect the maximum contact principle and ordered the father to pay temporary child and spousal support based on the parties' current actual incomes.

The applicant mother brought a motion for $30,000 in interim disbursements under Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules to fund a critique of the respondent father's income valuation and further litigation steps regarding child support.

The court applied the modified Okanagan test for family law cases.

While finding the applicant impecunious and that an award would level the playing field, the court dismissed the motion without prejudice because the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case that the respondent's income was higher than disclosed, and failed to provide evidence detailing how the requested funds would be utilized.

The applicant brought a motion regarding an unpaid equalization payment and sought a preliminary order that the respondent was not entitled to further relief due to his ongoing breach of a 2008 child support order.

The respondent had accumulated approximately $300,000 in child support arrears, claiming his obligation ended due to estrangement from the children, though he never sought to vary the order.

Applying the three-stage test for Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, the court declined to exercise discretion in the respondent's favour.

The court ordered that the respondent's motion be dismissed unless he pays the arrears accumulated up to the children's 18th birthdays and commences a Motion to Change within 60 days.

The parties separated after a 15-year cohabitation.

The applicant sought an equalization payment, ongoing and retroactive child and spousal support, and the sale of a jointly owned cottage.

The respondent sought a retroactive decrease in support, claiming overpayment, and requested the cottage be transferred to him.

The court imputed income to the respondent, finding him intentionally underemployed, and ordered ongoing and retroactive child and spousal support.

The court dismissed the respondent's claim for repayment of voluntary support.

Notably, the court found it lacked jurisdiction to order the sale or transfer of the cottage because it was located on leased First Nations reserve land governed by the Indian Act.

An equalization payment of $4,397.50 was ordered in favour of the applicant.

The parties separated and initially shared parenting of their two children in Hamilton.

The mother subsequently moved to Brampton and sought sole custody and primary residence, while the father sought joint custody and to maintain the shared parenting schedule in Hamilton.

The court found that the mother had always been the primary caregiver and that the father required significant third-party assistance to manage his parenting time.

Applying the best interests of the child test under the Children's Law Reform Act and the relocation principles from Gordon v. Goertz, the court awarded sole custody and primary residence to the mother in Brampton, with the father having parenting time three weekends out of four and mid-week visits.

Child support was also ordered.