Marc Gauthier

The applicant mother and respondent father brought cross-motions regarding interim child support, spousal support, and parenting time for their two children, one of whom is medically fragile.

The court ordered the father to pay interim child support of $822 per month and interim spousal support of $1,077 per month, finding the mother had established a prima facie case of need.

The court also modified the parenting schedule to a week-on/week-off arrangement to minimize conflict between the parties and provide greater stability for the children.

The plaintiffs, former tenants of the defendant, brought an action for unjust enrichment seeking compensation for extensive renovations and the construction of a large garage on the defendant's rental property.

The defendant counterclaimed for damages, alleging the plaintiffs left the property in disrepair and the garage incomplete.

The Superior Court of Justice found the plaintiffs' evidence credible and established that the defendant was unjustly enriched by the improvements.

The court also found an oral agreement existed for the defendant to reimburse the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs' claim was granted, awarding them $42,580 in damages, and the defendant's counterclaim was dismissed.

The applicant mother and respondent father separated after an eight-year relationship.

The mother sought primary parenting time, final decision-making responsibility, child support based on an imputed income for the father, and the return of her engagement ring.

The court ordered a shared parenting schedule as recommended by the Office of the Children's Lawyer clinician, but granted the mother final decision-making authority regarding health and education due to the father's history of anger and lack of organization.

The court imputed an annual income of $85,000 to the father, finding he intentionally underemployed himself and earned undeclared cash income.

The father was ordered to pay retroactive and ongoing child support, 60% of extraordinary expenses, and to return the engagement ring to the mother.

The parties separated after a short cohabitation marked by domestic violence and substance abuse.

The father sought sole custody of their two children, one of whom has autism, while the mother sought joint custody or shared parenting.

Relying on an Office of the Children's Lawyer report, the court awarded sole custody to the father due to the mother's ongoing substance abuse, mental health issues, and lack of parenting skills.

The father was ordered to pay retroactive child support and ongoing spousal support, while the mother was ordered to pay ongoing child support based on an imputed income of $20,000.

The applicant father initiated a motion to change a final order regarding custody and access.

The respondent mother brought a counter-motion seeking child support arrears, ongoing support, and other relief.

At the hearing of the mother's motion, the court noted that the father conceded to retroactive child support adjustments based on his actual income.

The court ordered a temporary without prejudice order for ongoing child support of $782 per month and $300 per month towards arrears, and directed the parties to schedule a settlement conference to address the remaining issues.

In a child protection status review under the Child and Family Services Act, the child protection agency sought a Crown wardship order for two young children with a view to adoption.

The mother sought the return of the children to her care with assistance from the maternal grandmother, while one father supported that position and alternatively requested an extension of statutory timelines.

After hearing extensive evidence from agency workers, foster parents, and family members, the court found the children continued to be in need of protection due to persistent concerns regarding parental capacity, safety of the home environment, substance use, and lack of cooperation with the agency.

The court concluded that the proposed family care plans were not realistic and would expose the children to continued instability and risk.

The children were therefore made Crown wards without access, enabling adoption planning to proceed.

Child protection agency sought summary judgment declaring three children in need of protection and requesting permanent Crown wardship for twin infants.

The evidence included medical findings of multiple fractures consistent with physical abuse inflicted while the children were in the care of the mother and her partner, along with evidence of parental instability and limited parenting capacity.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the twins’ protection status and their best interests, and found that adoption planning through Crown wardship was appropriate.

However, the court determined that a trial was required to decide the appropriate long‑term placement for the older child.

The biological father of the twins was permitted to participate and propose a care plan.

La requérante a présenté une motion pour jugement sommaire dans une instance de protection de l’enfance visant une ordonnance de pupille de la Couronne sans accès aux parents.

Elle soutenait qu’il n’existait aucune question en litige véritable concernant les capacités parentales, les limites intellectuelles des parents, leur logement, leur réseau de soutien et les besoins particuliers de l’enfant.

Le tribunal a examiné la preuve par affidavit et a conclu que plusieurs questions factuelles demeuraient sérieusement contestées et dépendaient d’évaluations de crédibilité et d’appréciations subjectives.

Les questions relatives aux capacités parentales, aux limites cognitives, au logement et au soutien familial nécessitaient un examen complet par témoignage et contre‑interrogatoire.

La motion pour jugement sommaire a donc été rejetée et l’affaire renvoyée pour procès.

A municipality brought an application seeking a finding of contempt against a property owner for failing to comply with court orders requiring compliance with building permit requirements and cessation of construction.

The court held that two earlier orders could not ground a contempt finding, including a prior contempt order imposing a fine.

However, the respondent was found to have willfully breached a subsequent order requiring him to obtain building permits, cease construction, and demolish unlawfully erected structures.

The court rejected the respondent’s argument that the municipality acted unreasonably in refusing permits and concluded that the respondent deliberately disregarded municipal building code requirements and court orders.

A finding of contempt was entered beyond a reasonable doubt, a committal warrant for 30 days’ imprisonment was issued, the municipality was authorized to demolish the structures, and costs were awarded.

The father brought a motion seeking joint custody of the parties’ children on a week-on, week-off basis.

The mother opposed the motion and sought to maintain the existing arrangement under which the children primarily resided with her and had daily contact with the father.

The court reviewed the parties’ post‑separation parenting history and found that the father had played a substantial caregiving role for approximately 18 months before the mother unilaterally reduced his weekday time.

The court concluded that the father’s proposed parenting schedule would provide greater stability and reduce daily transitions for the children, particularly in light of behavioural and adjustment concerns affecting one child.

An interim joint custody order with an alternating week schedule was granted.

Each parent brought a motion seeking determination of the primary residence of their young child as she was about to begin school.

The parties had previously operated under a shared custody arrangement following their separation, but the mother's relocation created practical difficulties once the child commenced school.

Applying the best interests test under s. 24(2) of the Children's Law Reform Act, the court evaluated each parent's proposed parenting plan, including schooling arrangements, caregiving availability, and the stability of the child’s daily routine.

The court found the mother’s proposal would provide the child with greater parental presence, fewer daily transitions, and better support during the school week.

A temporary order granted joint custody with primary weekday residence with the mother and extended weekend parenting time with the father.

Each parent brought a motion seeking determination of the primary residence of their young child as she was about to begin school.

The parties had previously operated under a shared custody arrangement following their separation, but the mother's relocation created practical difficulties once the child commenced school.

Applying the best interests test under s. 24(2) of the Children's Law Reform Act, the court evaluated each parent's proposed parenting plan, including schooling arrangements, caregiving availability, and the stability of the child’s daily routine.

The court found the mother’s proposal would provide the child with greater parental presence, fewer daily transitions, and better support during the school week.

A temporary order granted joint custody with primary weekday residence with the mother and extended weekend parenting time with the father.