Martin E. Vamos

The moving party father brought a motion to adjourn an upcoming family law trial and requested further financial disclosure from the responding party mother.

The mother and the Office of the Children's Lawyer opposed the adjournment, arguing it was an abuse of process and that resolving the parenting and financial issues promptly was in the child's best interests.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding no justification for the delay and noting he had ample time to prepare and seek employment.

Costs of $1,000 were awarded to the mother.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order to place three children in extended society care with no access to the respondent parents.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding the need for protection, citing chronic exposure to domestic violence and conflict in the home.

The children were ordered into extended society care.

The court granted summary judgment denying access to one father who had no relationship with his child.

However, the court found a genuine issue for trial regarding access for the mother and the other father, directing that issue to a focused hearing.

The Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton brought a motion seeking permission to proceed with a summary judgment motion in a complex child protection file involving three children.

The motion was heard via Zoom during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court considered the urgency of child protection matters and the court's evolving protocols.

One respondent, K.K., who was self-represented, requested an adjournment to retain counsel.

The court granted the Society's request to proceed with the summary judgment motion, allowing K.K. a brief extension to file further materials and retain counsel, emphasizing the need for timely resolution for the children.

The applicant mother brought a summary judgment motion seeking sole custody, child support, and access at her discretion.

The respondent father, who was incarcerated, agreed to primary residence with the mother but sought joint custody upon his release.

The parties settled all issues except the custody designation.

The court applied the Hryniak test for summary judgment and the Kaplanis principles for joint custody.

Finding a history of high conflict, poor communication, and the father's frequent incarceration, the court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and granted the mother sole custody.

This decision addresses the costs arising from competing motions regarding children's residence and parenting time.

The respondent was largely successful in the underlying motions, leading to a presumptive entitlement to costs.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the applicant's conduct, while misleading regarding relocation, did not unduly protract proceedings.

The court reduced the respondent's claimed partial indemnity costs by five hours of lawyer time to account for issues (equalization, property, spousal support) settled by a prior consent order that included a 'no costs' provision.

The applicant was ordered to pay $9,505 in costs.

The parties filed competing motions regarding the children's primary residence and the respondent's parenting time.

The applicant sought to relocate the children to Sunderland, Ontario, and for them to attend school in Uxbridge.

The respondent sought to maintain the children's residence in Brantford or Hamilton and to have unsupervised overnight access.

The court found the applicant was deliberately deceitful about her relocation intentions and that the move would disrupt the children's stability.

The court denied the applicant's request to relocate and ordered the children to return to the Brantford-Hamilton area by the December school break.

The court granted the respondent's request for unsupervised alternate weekend overnight access, finding no convincing evidence for ongoing supervision and that the existing access was inadequate.

Following a motion in family proceedings, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The successful party sought substantial or full indemnity costs exceeding $4,800, while the opposing party argued that such elevated costs were not justified and challenged the time spent by opposing counsel.

The court held that criticisms of counsel’s time expenditures were unsupported without a comparative bill of costs from the opposing party.

Given that several issues were resolved through Minutes of Settlement and did not require argument, the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs and instead fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The father applied for sole custody of his four-year-old daughter, who had been living with her maternal grandmother for almost four years.

The mother, who had significant mental health and substance abuse issues, supported the grandmother's claim for custody.

The court found that the grandmother's home environment was unstable and that she lacked insight into the mother's and her own deficiencies, including failing to protect the child from the mother's violent partner and failing to address the child's chronic head lice.

The court determined that the father offered a stable, loving, and comprehensive plan for the child's care.

Sole custody was granted to the father, with specified access to the mother and maternal grandparents.

The applicant mother sought court approval for auto transplantation dental surgery for her daughter Juliana, who had lost three front teeth in a boating accident.

The respondent father opposed the procedure and favored waiting until the child reached maturity to undergo traditional dental implants.

The court found that the mother, as the primary custodial parent who had taken initiative in obtaining professional assistance, had the authority to make this medical decision.

The court approved the auto transplantation procedure, finding it to be a scientifically valid option with comparable success rates to the alternative procedure, and that it was in the best interests of the child.

On an interim family law motion, the responding parent sought immediate implementation of recommendations from a s. 112 Office of the Children’s Lawyer report shortly before a scheduled custody trial.

The court reviewed the governing principles regarding reliance on untested assessment reports at the motion stage and the strong presumption in favour of maintaining the status quo pending trial.

However, evidence in the report and the parties’ materials revealed urgent concerns regarding the children’s safety, including repeated incidents of the other parent leaving the children unattended overnight and misleading authorities.

The court concluded that the circumstances justified limited interim intervention in the children’s best interests.

A temporary order significantly increased the moving parent’s parenting time, granted decision‑making authority over education and health issues, and suspended child support pending trial.

The appellant appealed a divorce judgment that awarded sole custody of the parties' biological child to the respondent and determined the respondent's child from a former relationship was a child of the marriage.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by refusing an adjournment to allow him to retain counsel and by misapplying the Child Support Guidelines.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the refusal to adjourn was a proper exercise of discretion given prior adjournments and lack of prejudice.

The Court also found no error in the child support order, noting the appellant failed to cross-examine the biological father on his ability to pay or demonstrate how shared custody provisions were triggered.

The mother brought a motion for leave to appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the motion for leave without costs.