Mark S. Trenholme

The Children's Aid Society of the Region of Peel sought extended care for two children, J and M, and specified access for the parents, T.R. and A.S. The parents sought the children's return to their joint care.

The court found the Society's initial removal of the children unjustified, concluding they were not at risk of physical harm in the parents' care.

The court determined that the children had suffered emotional harm due to their prolonged separation and placement in foster care, and that the Society had failed to apply consistent scrutiny to the foster parents' care compared to the biological parents.

The court ordered the immediate return of the children to the parents' care, subject to Society supervision and Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL) involvement, emphasizing the children's best interests and the parents' perseverance.

The respondent father brought a motion to change an interim order, seeking to terminate child support for an adult child and to temporarily terminate ongoing spousal support and arrears due to a medical inability to work.

On consent, the court ordered the final termination of child support as the child was no longer a 'child of the marriage' under the Divorce Act.

The court dismissed the motion to vary spousal support and arrears without prejudice, noting the parties agreed that the medical evidence regarding the father's inability to work needed to be supplemented.

The court also ordered the exchange of updated financial disclosure.

The applicant, the biological mother of the child J., brought a motion to change a 2016 final order that granted sole custody to the paternal grandmother (L.M.).

The applicant sought to change custody to herself, citing improvements in her mental health, stable housing, stable income, and an improved relationship with the child's father.

The court found that while the applicant had made positive changes in her life, these changes did not constitute a material change in circumstances sufficient to alter the child's custodial arrangements.

The court noted that the child was thriving in the grandmother's care and that the applicant had not demonstrated that the grandmother's care fell below recognized standards.

The motion was dismissed, but the court expanded access from three weekends per month to every other weekend, and granted summer vacation access and holiday access provisions.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's answer and dismiss all claims therein.

The respondent failed to comply with multiple court orders requiring financial disclosure, did not attend court proceedings, did not communicate with counsel, and left the jurisdiction.

The court found this to be an egregious and exceptional case warranting the striking of the respondent's pleadings.

The respondent's answer was struck and all claims dismissed, allowing the applicant to proceed on an uncontested basis with her amended application.

The respondent successfully brought a motion for disclosure against the applicant.

Following the motion, the parties agreed on costs, but the applicant's counsel failed to finalize the settlement.

The respondent then filed costs submissions, seeking the agreed-upon costs plus additional costs for the applicant's failure to follow through.

The court reviewed the principles of costs in family law, emphasizing indemnification, settlement encouragement, and discouraging inappropriate behavior.

The court found the applicant's conduct regarding disclosure and the costs settlement unreasonable and ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs, including an additional amount for the delay caused by the applicant's failure to finalize the settlement.

The defendant was charged with committing an indecent act.

The Crown alleged that the defendant approached the complainant and her friend in a Tim Hortons coffee shop and exposed his penis.

The defendant admitted being present but denied exposing himself, claiming he sat down momentarily to clear his head from a prior confrontation.

The trial involved testimony from the complainant, a police officer, and the defendant, as well as security camera footage.

The court found the complainant credible and rejected the defendant's account as implausible and contradicted by video evidence.

The defendant was convicted.

The respondent brought a motion to change a prior custody and child support order, seeking increased access to his son and reduced child support obligations.

The applicant opposed the access changes and sought recalculation of child support based on the respondent's increased income and elimination of his support obligations for two children from a previous relationship.

The court found a material change in circumstances warranting modification of the access provisions but not the child support amount.

The court granted overnight weekend access and extended summer access to the respondent, while imputing income based on his historical earning capacity as a truck driver and reducing his child support obligations accordingly.

The appellant appealed a change order made by the motion judge on June 10, 2016, which modified access arrangements for a seven-year-old child.

The original access order was made following a two-day trial on February 28, 2014.

The motion judge initially granted enhanced overnight access to the father on Monday and Thursday in alternate weeks to address the child's concerns about evening change-overs, but subsequently revised the order to Thursday overnights only in alternate weeks after the mother objected on child support grounds.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in principle by considering child support implications rather than the best interests of the child.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's revised endorsement, which was intended to address the presenting issue of evening change-overs while maintaining the overall joint custody arrangement established at trial.

The parties separated after a high-conflict marriage.

The main issues at trial were parenting arrangements, decision-making authority, and equalization of net family property.

The court found that the respondent mother had engaged in marginalizing conduct and attempted to alienate the children from the applicant father.

The court ordered a shared parenting week-about schedule and granted final decision-making authority to the father, subject to a detailed communication protocol.

On equalization, the court found that funds advanced by the mother's parents were a loan, and waived the father's equalization payment due to the mother's non-disclosure and unilateral disposal of household contents.

The mother was ordered to reimburse the father for post-separation adjustments.

Following the breakdown of a marriage with three children, the court addressed child support, spousal support, and equalization of property.

The court set the respondent’s income at $45,000 for child support purposes and ordered guideline child support of $858 per month.

The court imputed income of $25,000 to the applicant and determined that spousal support was not warranted under the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The principal property dispute concerned the value of the respondent’s insurance Book of Business, with the court accepting the respondent’s expert valuation methodology distinguishing between a brokerage and a producer’s client list.

The court fixed the value of the Book of Business at $107,500 and ordered a modest equalization payment and reimbursement of certain household expenses.

The accused was charged with 14 offences, including assault, sexual assault, and uttering threats against his former spouse.

The trial was a credibility contest between the accused and the complainant, with no independent corroborating evidence of the alleged violence.

Applying the W(D) framework, the court found that the conflicting evidence left it in a state of reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.

Following a two‑day trial concerning custody, parenting time, and child support, the mother sought sole custody and continuation of an existing parenting schedule while the father sought joint custody and equal parenting time.

The court applied the best interests of the child test under the Divorce Act and considered factors under s. 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act.

Evidence showed both parents had a positive relationship with the child and were able to communicate effectively about parenting decisions.

While the father sought equal parenting time, the court found the status quo arrangement provided stability and should continue.

Joint custody was ordered, the child’s primary residence remained with the mother, and the father was ordered to pay guideline child support based on imputed income.

Following a multi-day family trial addressing custody, access, equalization, child support, spousal support, retroactive support, and related financial issues, the court determined costs after written submissions.

The applicant was found to be the successful party under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The court considered the parties’ settlement offers and litigation conduct, finding the respondent’s settlement positions on child and spousal support unreasonable and noting delays in financial disclosure.

Full indemnity costs were awarded to the applicant, subject to excluding time related to a prior interim motion, and the respondent was ordered to pay fixed costs totaling $29,692.61.

The mother brought a motion seeking custody of one child and supervised access for the father, while accepting on a temporary basis that the other child would remain in the father’s custody.

The Office of the Children’s Lawyer supported the motion and presented evidence regarding the children’s views and the younger child’s educational and developmental needs.

The court found that the father had failed to comply with prior orders and had not supported the children’s relationship with their mother, contributing to the breakdown of the parenting arrangement.

Concluding that further delay would undermine the children’s relationship with the mother and be contrary to their best interests, the court granted the relief sought.

Orders were made transferring custody of the younger child to the mother, providing supervised access to the father, and establishing contact between the siblings.

Following an endorsement where both parties were successful on their respective motions regarding child access and travel to Egypt, the parties submitted costs submissions.

The court found that success was divided and ordered that no costs be awarded to either party.

The applicant brought a motion seeking an order requiring the respondent to pay outstanding costs and to post security for costs pursuant to rr. 24(13), 1(8), and 14(23) of the Family Law Rules.

The court declined to order security for costs, finding insufficient basis to conclude that the proceeding was a nuisance or waste of time, despite concerns about the respondent’s ability to satisfy future costs awards.

However, the court found the respondent failed to justify non‑payment of an existing costs order in favour of the applicant.

The respondent was ordered to pay the outstanding $1,000 costs order by a specified date, failing which his Answer would be struck and the applicant permitted to proceed by uncontested trial.

Costs of the motion were reserved to the trial judge.

The court determined child support payable from January 1, 2010 onwards, the income basis for that support, and outstanding arrears.

The applicant sought to impute income to the respondent based on past earnings, arguing he was wilfully underemployed.

The respondent argued his employment decisions were reasonable and support should be based on actual income.

The court found the respondent was not wilfully underemployed, though he was slow to seek alternative employment when positions proved unproductive.

The court attributed $42,500 income for 2010 and used actual income thereafter, resulting in minimal arrears of $69.00.

The parties separated after a 22-year marriage.

They have a 28-year-old cognitively impaired daughter who remained living with the respondent father.

The father engaged in a severe campaign of parental alienation, completely severing the daughter's relationship with the applicant mother.

The mother sought custody and access, as well as spousal support.

The court confirmed its jurisdiction under the Divorce Act to make custody orders for adult disabled children.

Despite the father's alienating conduct, the court ordered that the daughter's primary residence remain with the father to respect her expressed wishes, but mandated regular access for the mother.

The court also imputed income to the father, finding him intentionally underemployed, and ordered him to pay $1,500 per month in retroactive and ongoing spousal support.

The landlord brought a motion to transfer the tenants' appeal of an eviction order from Brampton to the Toronto Divisional Court.

The tenants had appealed the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal's eviction order, which automatically stayed the eviction, but they failed to pay ongoing rent or arrears.

The court granted the motion to transfer the appeal.

Furthermore, the court ordered on its own motion that the tenants must pay rent arrears and ongoing rent within 15 days, failing which the stay of the eviction order would be lifted.