Marvin Kurz

The mother brought a motion to change her existing Monday access visits to include overnight access.

The Children's Aid Society and the father consented to the general outline of expanded access but proposed 24 conditions.

The court granted the mother's motion to change, permitting unsupervised overnight access visits each Monday from 3:20 p.m. until Tuesday at 9:00 a.m., subject to comprehensive terms and conditions addressing home maintenance, Society supervision, child safety, parental conduct, and restrictions on third-party involvement.

The court dismissed one proposed condition regarding evidence of stability without prejudice.

A mother sought to garnish a discretionary trust established for the benefit of a non-paying support payor to enforce unpaid child support arrears exceeding $40,000.

The trust, known as a "Henson trust" was created by the payor's mother and placed full discretion over distributions in the hands of the payor's siblings as trustees.

The court held that the trust could not be garnished because the payor held no beneficial interest in the trust funds and the trustees owed no debt to the payor.

The court dismissed the garnishment notices, finding that discretionary trusts remain immune from garnishment for child support enforcement purposes.

The Director, Family Responsibility Office brought a default proceeding against the respondent for failure to honour a child support order requiring monthly payments of $682.00 per month.

The respondent accumulated arrears of $55,005.00 over approximately 80 missed payments since 2010.

The respondent claimed inability to pay due to unemployment resulting from his criminal record and notoriety, and disputed the existence of a trust fund found by the original trial judge.

The court found the respondent failed to rebut the presumption of ability to pay, failed to provide valid reasons for non-payment, failed to demonstrate acceptance of responsibility, and failed to provide required financial disclosure.

The court imposed a warrant of committal for 90 days imprisonment or until arrears were paid, plus 3 days imprisonment for each future default.

A motion brought by the mother seeking exclusive decision-making authority regarding ADHD treatment for the parties' thirteen-year-old son, including the right to consent to medication and to choose treatment providers.

The father opposed the motion, arguing for a collaborative approach and non-medication alternatives.

The court found that medication is the most effective treatment modality for ADHD based on expert evidence from the child's psychologist and pediatrician.

The court granted the mother exclusive decision-making authority regarding ADHD treatment and prohibited the father from discussing medication with the child or attempting to dissuade him from its use, finding that the father had engaged in manipulative conduct and was not open to evidence-based treatment.

The respondent brought an ex parte motion seeking leave to bring a Family Law Rule r. 15 motion to change a child support order.

The applicant was unrepresented and did not receive notice.

The court dismissed the motion on multiple grounds: the respondent had previously been ordered by Justice O'Connell not to bring future proceedings without leave of the court due to prior misconduct including misleading the court, filing false affidavits, and failing to pay support; the respondent failed to meet the duty of candour required on ex parte motions by withholding vital information; the affidavit filed by a law clerk violated Family Law Rules requirements by containing hearsay evidence without proper identification of sources; and the conditions for bringing a motion without notice under Family Law Rule 14(12) were not met.

A costs decision following the court's earlier orders striking the applicant's pleadings for breaches of court orders and granting a final order in a family law matter.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs totalling $15,530.61 for a motion to strike and the remainder of the proceeding.

The applicant was self-represented and failed to make settlement offers or comply with disclosure obligations.

The court awarded full indemnity costs to the respondent, finding the applicant engaged in bad faith conduct and unreasonable behaviour.

A child protection trial involving three children (AB, AM, and MM) brought by the Halton Children's Aid Society.

The mother (MM) and father of two of the children (DJ) were convicted of sexual crimes against the mother's oldest child (JB).

The court found all three children in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act based on risk of sexual molestation or exploitation and, for two children, parental unavailability.

AB was placed with her biological father under a supervision order; AM and MM were placed with their maternal aunt and uncle under a supervision order.

The mother was granted minimal access (one weekly phone call and one monthly letter) with no in-person access ordered at the time of judgment.

A child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act in which the Halton Children's Aid Society sought a finding that a child was in need of protection under sections 37(2)(f) and (g) due to emotional harm caused by parental conflict, particularly the mother's unfounded allegations of abuse against the father.

The Society sought placement of the child in the father's custody with supervised access for the mother.

The mother opposed the application and sought dismissal or, alternatively, joint and equally shared custody.

The court found the child was in need of protection, placed the child in the father's exclusive care and custody, and ordered supervised access for the mother under a one-year supervision order.

This is a costs decision following the court's determination of two motions: the respondent's motion for summary judgment and the applicant's motion for temporary child support.

The court granted partial summary judgment to the applicant on the issue of entitlement to child support and awarded both retroactive and prospective temporary child support.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of $17,789.72, arguing success, failure of the respondent to make settlement offers, unreasonable litigation behavior, and bad faith.

The respondent argued no costs should be awarded or alternatively costs should be limited to half of partial indemnity costs due to divided success.

The court awarded the applicant full indemnity costs, finding the applicant was substantially successful, the respondent engaged in unreasonable behavior including refusing to respond to settlement offers and bringing numerous unsuccessful procedural motions, and while not finding bad faith, the respondent's conduct warranted full cost recovery.

A 17-year-old university student sought child support from her father after withdrawing from his parental control.

The father moved for summary judgment to dismiss the application, arguing that the daughter's withdrawal from parental control under the Family Law Act disentitled her to support.

The court found that although the daughter had withdrawn from parental control, her withdrawal was involuntary due to the father's controlling nature, his failure to consider her best interests, his lack of attempts to repair the relationship, and the fact that she did not withdraw from both parents.

The court dismissed the father's motion and found the daughter entitled to child support.

The court also determined temporary child support of $6,500 per month, retroactive to August 1, 2016, and ordered the father to pay all college expenses as section 7 special and extraordinary expenses.

The quantum of final support was left for trial.

The respondent brought a 14B motion to reopen evidence in two previously heard motions (a summary judgment motion to dismiss a child support application and a temporary support motion) that were awaiting decision.

The respondent sought to introduce fresh evidence regarding a receivership order affecting a company in which he held a 60% interest.

The applicant opposed the motion and sought dismissal, or alternatively, sought specific disclosure orders.

The court found it had jurisdiction to reopen argument but held that the respondent failed to meet the test for admission of fresh evidence, even under the relaxed standard applicable before decision release.

The respondent provided insufficient evidence demonstrating how the receivership would affect his ability to pay support.

The motion was dismissed with costs reserved.

The father sought costs against the child's privately retained counsel, Lorne Glass, following the dismissal of a child protection application brought by the 13-year-old applicant.

The father claimed that Mr. Glass acted improperly by bringing an abuse of process proceeding devoid of merit, wasting court time, and failing to seek proper court authorization for his representation of the child.

The court found that Mr. Glass's conduct caused costs to be incurred unnecessarily by commencing a collateral proceeding for an improper purpose—to stay the father's pending custody trial—rather than seeking appointment as counsel under the Family Law Rules.

Despite finding unnecessary costs were incurred, the court applied the "extreme caution" test and awarded only $5,000 in costs against counsel, recognizing the importance of protecting resolute advocacy in child protection matters.

The applicant sought retroactive variation of a separation agreement to recover unpaid spousal support.

The respondent had misrepresented his income as $80,000 annually when negotiating the agreement, but subsequently earned significantly more (averaging $182,012.50 annually from 2009-2014).

After signing the agreement, the respondent ceased support payments for over three years while earning substantial income, justifying his actions with false claims of financial hardship.

The court found a material change in circumstances and awarded retroactive spousal support of $102,787.75 (net of tax adjustments), payable within 60 days.

The court rejected the respondent's arguments regarding the applicant's alleged unclean hands and found his conduct throughout the proceedings to be blameworthy.

The court determined access arrangements for a five-year-old child following a custody determination.

The mother sought to maintain a rigid access schedule to protect the child's stability and prevent parental alienation.

The father sought broad access rights including a right of first refusal.

The court found the father had a pattern of litigation misconduct, non-payment of child support, failure to comply with court orders, and inappropriate parental behavior including attempting to alienate the child from the mother.

The court granted the mother's position, establishing a detailed and restrictive access schedule with clear consequences for breaches, finding that the father's behavior threatened the child's emotional stability and best interests.

The parties reached a comprehensive settlement agreement following a case conference and submitted a consent order to the court.

The draft order included provisions requiring the parties to appoint a parenting coordinator with authority to resolve disputes through mediation and arbitration (secondary arbitration) under section 59.7 of the Family Law Act.

The court questioned its jurisdiction to include such mandatory arbitration provisions in a court order and sought clarification from counsel.

The court ultimately determined that while the parties may voluntarily enter into an arbitration agreement, the court lacks statutory authority to order parties to submit to arbitration, even by consent order.

The court approved the draft order with the parenting coordinator provisions deleted.

In this custody and child support trial, the father sought sole custody of the ten-year-old child, alleging the mother's unstable lifestyle involving numerous moves and relationships had harmed the child.

The mother, who had been the primary caregiver since birth, opposed the change and argued the father had been an inconsistent and uninvolved parent.

The court appointed the Office of the Children's Lawyer to conduct a clinical investigation.

The investigator's final report recommended a change of custody due to the mother's continued transience, exposure of the child to adult conflict with her partner, and concerns about the child's school attendance and stability.

The court granted sole custody to the father, finding it was in the child's best interests to provide stability and prevent further disruption.

The court also addressed retroactive child support, finding the father had underpaid support and imputed income to the mother for ongoing support obligations.

The maternal family members of a four-year-old child sought a motion for consistent, unsupervised access to the child following the death of the child's mother.

The respondent father opposed the motion, arguing that as the sole surviving parent, he should retain discretion over access decisions.

The court found that while the father had legitimate concerns about the family's conduct, his decision to restrict access was partially arbitrary and not in the child's best interests.

The court granted limited unsupervised access to the child's grandmother and aunt, with strict conditions regarding conduct and communication.

The court also struck paragraphs of the father's application containing defamation claims, finding the Ontario Court of Justice lacked jurisdiction over such claims, and refused to transfer the proceeding to Superior Court.

The applicant brought a motion seeking multiple forms of relief, including an order that a different judge be seized of the case, a restraining order preventing contact between the respondent's eldest daughter and the applicant's children, an order for supervised access between the applicant's children and the respondent, and various orders regarding Children's Aid Society files and sealing of court records.

The respondent opposed the motion.

The court dismissed most of the applicant's requests, finding that the applicant was engaged in judge shopping and that there was no credible evidence supporting her allegations of sexual abuse.

The court granted an order for bi-weekly supervised sibling access visits between the children and the respondent's eldest daughters at a supervised access centre.

A 13-year-old child commenced a child welfare proceeding against her parents and the local children's aid society, seeking a finding that she and her siblings were in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act.

The father moved to dismiss the application as an abuse of process and for failure to raise a genuine issue for trial.

The court found that the child had commenced the proceeding under the influence of her mother as a tactical measure to interfere with concurrent Superior Court custody proceedings.

The court dismissed the application, finding it was an abuse of process and raised no genuine issue for trial.

The applicant mother sought disclosure of the complete records of the Children's Aid Society regarding investigations into allegations that her children were sexually abused by a step-sibling.

The respondent father and the CAS opposed the motion.

The court applied the Stavro test for third-party disclosure and considered principles of proportionality and fairness.

The court granted partial disclosure of CAS records related to the specific investigation of the sexual abuse allegations, but denied disclosure of all statements made by the respondent to the CAS, finding the request was overbroad and amounted to a fishing expedition.