Lynn Burgess

The applicant step-father brought a motion seeking contact and parenting time with his 5-year-old step-child after the respondent mother unilaterally terminated contact for nine months.

The mother argued that as a non-parent, the applicant had no presumptive right to access and that resumed contact would negatively affect her mental health.

The court found that the applicant had demonstrated a settled intention to treat the child as his own and had been authentically involved in parenting.

The court ordered the resumption of contact, emphasizing that a biological parent cannot arbitrarily deprive a child of a committed step-parent relationship.

The applicant step-father sought costs following a successful motion to resume contact with the child.

He sought full recovery costs of $26,570.27 based on an offer to settle.

The respondent mother argued for reduced costs due to partial success, financial hardship, and trauma-based motivations.

The court found the applicant was entirely successful on the core issue of resuming contact and that his costs were proportional.

The court fixed costs at $20,000, to be paid at a rate of $200 per month set off against the applicant's ongoing child support obligations.

Following an oral judgment ordering the resumption of contact between a parent and child, the court directed counsel to provide submissions or a consent agreement regarding the practical facilitation and early schedule for the contact.

The court scheduled a follow-up hearing in the event the parties could not agree.

The applicant father commenced litigation seeking shared parenting and alleging parental alienation after the children refused overnight visits.

Following an assessment that found the children's views were independent and based on the father's behaviour, the matter settled with the father receiving daytime visits only.

The respondent mother sought costs as the successful party.

The court found the mother was the successful party, as the father's claims were unreasonable and he ultimately capitulated.

The court awarded the mother $20,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements.

The court issued a costs endorsement following motions regarding supervised parenting time.

The applicants, the mother and maternal grandmothers, were largely successful in their request to have family members supervise contact with the child, rather than a professional service.

The respondent father took an unreasonable position in insisting on professional supervision and arbitrarily cutting off contact with the grandmothers.

The court awarded costs of $8,500 to the mother and $10,000 to the grandmothers, payable by the father.

The applicant step-mother brought a motion for the interim primary care and return of her five-year-old step-daughter from Newfoundland to Ontario.

The respondent father had moved to Newfoundland with the child following the parties' separation.

The court found that the status quo of the parties living together and co-parenting could not be restored.

Applying the best interests of the child test under the Children's Law Reform Act, the court determined that the child's needs were being met in Newfoundland and dismissed the applicant's motion, allowing the child to remain with the respondent father.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a 2013 consent order regarding custody and access of the parties' three children, seeking sole custody due to severe parental alienation by the respondent father.

The father brought a cross-motion seeking primary residence.

After a 14-day trial, the court found overwhelming evidence that the father had engaged in a relentless campaign of severe parental alienation, manipulating the children into unjustifiably rejecting their mother.

The court concluded there was a material change in circumstances and that a drastic response was required in the children's best interests.

The court granted the mother sole temporary custody, ordered the children to have no contact with the father or his extended family for a minimum of 90 days, and directed the mother and children to attend the Family Bridges reunification program.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking expanded access to his child following several years of interrupted contact arising from allegations of sexual abuse that resulted in criminal charges but ultimately ended in acquittals.

Competing professional evidence addressed the child’s wishes, potential coaching, and the impact of parental conflict on the child’s wellbeing.

Psychological and therapeutic assessments concluded that the child had little or no independent recollection of abuse and that continued reunification with the father was beneficial and safe.

Applying the best interests analysis under s. 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court found the risk of harm to the child from renewed contact to be low and the benefits of rebuilding the parent-child relationship significant.

The court ordered a modified, slower graduated access regime with initial supervision and a future professional review.

Following a family law motion concerning the matrimonial home, child support, and a parenting coordination agreement, the court addressed costs.

The respondent on the motion argued he was the successful party and sought full indemnity costs based on an offer to settle and alleged bad faith by the other party.

The court found that neither party’s offer complied with the strict requirements of Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules and therefore full indemnity costs were not mandatory.

However, the court determined the respondent was largely successful on the dominant issue and that the applicant had engaged in unreasonable conduct by listing and negotiating the sale of the matrimonial home without meaningful involvement from the other party.

Considering hardship but maintaining the principle that costs follow the event, the court awarded partial indemnity costs.