L.M. Olah

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a final order to seek sole custody of the child, and the respondent father responded seeking sole custody and a finding of contempt against the mother for access denial and breaches of previous orders.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the mother's frequent relocations, school changes, and introduction of new partners, which negatively impacted the child.

The court ordered joint custody with a parallel parenting regime, dividing decision-making responsibilities, while maintaining the child's primary residence with the mother.

The mother was found in contempt of court for deliberately breaching previous orders regarding the child's name change, decision-making consultation, and make-up access.

The applicant brought a motion for interim child and spousal support, and the respondent brought a cross-motion for access to their two young children.

The court imputed the respondent's income at $62,000 and found the applicant had established a prima facie case for spousal support entitlement due to the economic disadvantage of parenting.

The court ordered interim child and spousal support, and granted the respondent graduated access, starting with supervised visits and transitioning to unsupervised access, with strict conditions regarding the supervision of his older special needs child.

The respondent brought a motion to vary a prior order by reducing child support, while the applicant sought an increase based on reassessment of the respondent’s income.

The court addressed admissibility of expert accounting reports, struck a portion of the applicant’s affidavit lacking a proper source of information, and interpreted a prior order providing for “without prejudice differential” support pending determination of actual incomes.

After reviewing competing expert reports, the court accepted the respondent’s expert evidence regarding corporate losses and determined the respondent’s guideline incomes for 2012, 2013, and 2014.

The court also found the applicant intentionally underemployed and imputed income to her.

Child support was recalculated on a set‑off basis due to the shared parenting arrangement.

In a custody and child support dispute, the applicant mother sought sole custody and restrictions on the respondent father's access.

The respondent father sought shared custody with the child spending extended periods with each parent, including schooling in another country.

The court found that both parents had shortcomings, including the father's failure to cooperate with investigations and the mother's rigidity and use of police intervention in parenting disputes.

The court concluded that the child's best interests required meaningful involvement with both parents but that the parties' poor communication made joint custody impractical.

Sole custody was granted to the mother, the restraining order was terminated, structured access for the father was established with potential expansion upon satisfactory child protection assessments, and child support was increased based on imputed income.

This costs endorsement followed a family law motion in which the applicant sought to set aside a separation agreement and obtain support, equalization, and extensive disclosure relief.

The court found mixed success as against non-party business associates and corporations and ordered no costs between them and the applicant.

As between the spouses, the respondent was the successful party on the omnibus motion, although he consented after submissions to provide additional disclosure relevant to valuation and income analysis.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court held that the respondent's disclosure conduct did not rise to the level of unreasonable behaviour disentitling him to costs, but it reduced the quantum having regard to proportionality and the applicant's financial circumstances.

Following a motion to change in a family law matter, the court determined costs.

Although the responding party had been dilatory in pursuing the motion and providing financial disclosure, he was largely successful on the motion to change and therefore presumptively entitled to costs under rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules.

The opposing party argued that circumstances justified rebutting the presumption and sought costs despite the outcome.

The court found no basis to depart from the ordinary rule of success, particularly given that the successful party had made a more generous offer to settle than the final judgment.

Modest partial indemnity costs were awarded to the successful party.

In a child protection proceeding under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act, the society sought summary judgment for Crown wardship without access in order to pursue adoption of the child by foster parents.

The father opposed the motion and advanced a plan of care proposing that the child reside with him and the paternal great‑grandmother, with daycare and extended family support.

The court held that the society had not established that there was no realistic probability of an outcome other than Crown wardship and that several material issues required a full trial, including the legitimacy of the re‑apprehension, the father’s alleged rehabilitation, kinship placement options, and potential Indigenous heritage considerations.

The court concluded that these matters required credibility assessments and cross‑examination that could not be resolved on a summary judgment record.

The society’s motion for summary judgment and the father’s motion for interim care were both dismissed, and the matter was directed to proceed to trial.

The applicant mother sought retroactive and ongoing section 7 expenses, enforcement of previously ordered orthodontic and passport costs, and retroactive spousal support following a 17-year relationship.

The court determined the parties' incomes and apportioned the children's extraordinary expenses, including extracurricular activities and post-secondary education.

The court ordered the respondent father to pay his share of the section 7 expenses and the previously ordered costs, enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

The claim for retroactive spousal support was dismissed as the mother failed to establish need during the relevant period.

A child protection agency brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that a newborn child was in need of protection and an order for Crown wardship without access under the Child and Family Services Act.

The agency relied on extensive findings from earlier proceedings in which four older siblings had been removed from the parents due to serious protection concerns, including inflicted injuries, failure to thrive, and inability of the father to protect the children.

The parents relied primarily on a psychological assessment suggesting some potential for improvement but did not provide evidence of rehabilitation, counselling, or parenting programs.

The court held that the report did not raise a triable issue capable of rebutting the strong prima facie case arising from the parents’ past conduct.

The child was found to be in need of protection and made a Crown ward without access, as the parents failed to demonstrate that access would be beneficial and meaningful or consistent with the child’s permanency planning.

The applicant brought a family law motion seeking authority relating to the matrimonial home’s insurance policy, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and interim child and spousal support.

The respondent sought exclusive possession of the home and access for valuation purposes.

The court declined to grant the applicant authority over the insurance policy or remediation decisions, finding it inappropriate given the respondent’s obligations to the lender and insurer and the uncertainty regarding the value of damaged contents.

The court ordered the applicant to vacate the matrimonial home and granted the respondent exclusive possession, while providing interim child and spousal support once the applicant vacated.

Issues relating to custody and access were adjourned pending further evidence.

A child protection agency brought a motion for summary judgment seeking findings that two children were in need of protection and requesting Crown wardship without access for the purpose of adoption.

The court considered whether any genuine issue for trial existed under the Family Law Rules and the Child and Family Services Act.

The evidence showed longstanding instability, domestic violence, mental health issues, and parenting incapacity affecting the parents, as well as sporadic parental contact and delayed paternal involvement.

The court concluded that neither parent established a triable issue regarding placement or access and that the children’s best interests required permanent placement.

Crown wardship orders without access were granted.

The applicant father brought a contempt motion in a family law proceeding alleging multiple breaches of prior court orders by the respondent mother.

The court had previously found the respondent in contempt for failing to produce counselling records, failing to comply with a parenting schedule requiring attendance at children’s baseball activities, and failing to transfer ownership of equipment as ordered.

At sentencing, the court determined that some contempt had been belatedly purged while other breaches remained incapable of remedy.

The court imposed financial penalties totalling $800 for the contempts and awarded substantial full recovery costs to the applicant due to the respondent’s bad faith delay and repeated failure to comply with disclosure obligations.

Additional costs were ordered against the respondent and partially against her counsel for adjournments and procedural delays.

Costs were determined following a successful summary judgment motion arising from a family law motion to change.

The responding party had been wholly successful and obtained final orders regarding custody and support after the moving party failed to comply with court orders, failed to produce financial disclosure, and failed to serve responding materials.

The court noted extensive non‑compliance and conduct that significantly increased litigation costs, including lengthy communications and failure to participate meaningfully in the proceedings.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and considering the offer to settle, the court held that full indemnity costs were appropriate.

The moving party was ordered to pay $14,000 in costs.

On an amended temporary care motion in a child protection proceeding, the applicant society sought to vary an existing temporary order and place two children in its care pending trial.

The matter involved concerns about unexplained injuries to a child, repeated medical issues affecting the children, domestic violence between caregivers, and unsafe living conditions including drug paraphernalia and unsanitary housing.

The court considered the statutory framework under s. 51(6) of the Child and Family Services Act and rejected the necessity of a strict two‑stage “material change in circumstances” analysis, emphasizing the court’s ongoing obligation to assess risk of harm to the children.

The court found that the cumulative events and health concerns established that the children faced risks that could not be adequately addressed by supervision alone.

The temporary order was varied to place the twins in the society’s care, while another child remained in kinship placement with supervised parental access.

Prospective adoptive parents applied to adopt a minor relative who had entered Canada as a visitor and later remained without valid immigration status.

The court considered whether the child qualified as a resident of Ontario under s. 146(5) of the Child and Family Services Act and whether the proposed adoption constituted an impermissible “accommodation adoption” intended primarily to circumvent immigration laws.

Applying prior case law on residency and bona fide adoptions, the court found that the child had developed a sufficient and genuine connection to Ontario through years of residence, schooling, and integration into the applicants’ household.

The court further determined that the proposed adoption was motivated by the creation of a genuine parent-child relationship rather than immigration advantage.

The adoption was held to be in the child’s best interests and was granted.

Following the dismissal of a husband's motion seeking reconsideration of an earlier family law order, the wife sought costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The court rejected allegations that the motion had been brought in bad faith but found the husband's decision to pursue reconsideration rather than an appeal to be unreasonable.

As a result, the court determined that full recovery of the wife's reasonable costs was warranted, subject to a minor reduction reflecting items for which costs had previously been denied.

The husband was ordered to pay the reduced costs amount, enforceable as spousal support through the Family Responsibility Office.

Following a motion to change brought by the father seeking to terminate ongoing child support retroactively and to terminate an obligation to fund a registered education savings plan, the mother was wholly successful.

The court considered costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

Although the moving party’s conduct at trial was deficient in certain respects, it did not rise to the level of bad faith warranting substantial indemnity costs.

As the successful party had made no offer to settle, the court ordered partial recovery.

Costs were fixed at 66% of full recovery and made enforceable through the Family Responsibility Office.