Marie-Jose Beauplan-Mann

Following a four-day family law trial, both parties sought costs.

The applicant was successful in establishing the respondent's income at a higher level for support purposes and achieved some success regarding private school tuition.

However, she was unsuccessful in her claim for an unequal division of family property.

The court found that success was divided and that the applicant's conduct throughout the proceedings was unreasonable, significantly increasing the time and costs of the matter.

Consequently, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The respondent (father) brought a motion to change a 2005 child support order, seeking to terminate his child support obligation based on claims that he had the children in his care for 50% of the time from June 2007 to June 2012, and 70% thereafter.

The applicant (mother) disputed these claims.

The court determined that the preliminary issue was whether the father had met the onus of proving that the children were in his care for at least 40% of the time, which is the threshold under section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines.

The court found that the father failed to meet this burden and dismissed the motion to change.

A motion for summary judgment brought by the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto in a child protection application regarding four children.

The applicant sought protection findings under the Child and Family Services Act and a disposition of crown wardship with no access for purposes of adoption.

The respondent parents opposed the motion and sought a trial.

The court found overwhelming evidence of physical and emotional abuse of the children by the parents, including detailed and consistent disclosures by the children to multiple professionals, medical evidence, and psychological assessments diagnosing three of the four children with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

The court granted the motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial, and made orders for crown wardship without access to the parents.

A motion by the applicant mother seeking a declaration that the respondent is a parent of the oldest child for child support purposes, temporary custody of three children, temporary access restrictions, and temporary child support.

The respondent brought a cross-motion seeking temporary joint custody of his two biological children and expanded access.

The court found that the respondent demonstrated a settled intention to treat the oldest child as a member of his family during cohabitation and therefore stands in the place of a parent.

Temporary custody was awarded to the mother.

The respondent was granted graduated access to all three children, with the option to include the oldest child.

Temporary child support was ordered for all three children based on an imputed income.