8 total
Custody of two children granted to paternal grandparents following mother's failure to protect from sexual abuse.
The Children's Aid Society brought a protection application regarding two children.
The older child disclosed sexual abuse by the mother's new partner, and the mother failed to protect the child, eventually resuming her relationship with the abuser.
The children were placed in the temporary care of their paternal grandparents.
At trial, the court found the children in need of protection.
The father sought custody but had moved to a new city with a partner who had seven children recovering from severe trauma, and the older child refused contact with him.
The court granted a final custody order to the paternal grandparents under section 102 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, finding it in the children's best interests, and ordered a structured access schedule for the parents.
Summary judgment granted placing child in extended society care without access due to parents' substance abuse.
The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order finding the child in need of protection and placing the child in extended society care without access.
The parents had a history of substance abuse, domestic violence, and failure to comply with safety plans.
The father consented to the order, while the mother did not file responding materials but attended the hearing, acknowledging her ongoing drug use and inability to parent.
The court found no genuine issue for trial, determining the child was in need of protection and that extended care without access was in the child's best interests to facilitate adoption.
The successful respondent father was awarded $95,000 in costs following a six-day family law trial.
The court determined costs following a six-day family law trial.
The respondent father was found to be the successful party on most issues, particularly child-related matters and property equalization, despite the applicant mother's partial success on a date of marriage deduction.
The respondent sought full recovery costs based on an offer to settle, but the court found the offer did not meet the strict requirements of Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.
The court also declined to find the applicant acted in bad faith under Rule 24(8), though her conduct was deemed egregious.
Considering the respondent's overall success, the applicant's unreasonable behaviour during litigation (denying access, disobeying court orders, seeking unavailable relief), the reasonableness of counsel's time and rates, and the applicant's superior financial position, the court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent $95,000 in costs.
Spousal support Appeal decision
The court issued a costs endorsement following a motion to change regarding spousal support.
The Respondent was deemed the successful party in the underlying motion, as the court ordered indefinite support of $1,000 per month, contrary to the Applicant's position that no support was payable.
The court considered the parties' offers to settle, finding the Respondent's offer more aligned with the final order.
The Applicant's self-representation and unreasonable position at trial contributed to increased costs for the Respondent.
Considering proportionality, reasonableness, and the Applicant's financial circumstances, the court awarded the Respondent $15,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable as support.
The court imputed income to an intentionally underemployed husband and ordered indefinite spousal support, finding an informal 2008 termination agreement invalid.
The Applicant Husband sought an order confirming the termination of spousal support effective July 29, 2008, based on an alleged agreement.
The Respondent Wife sought an order for spousal support commencing October 1, 2017.
The court found that the Respondent Wife did not release her claim to spousal support on a final basis in 2008, as the alleged agreement did not meet the formal requirements of a domestic contract under the Family Law Act and was made under circumstances of vulnerability and unfairness.
The court imputed income to the Applicant Husband due to intentional under-employment and ordered him to pay spousal support of $400 per month from October 1, 2017, to December 31, 2019, and $1,000 per month indefinitely commencing January 1, 2020.
Costs of $6,500 awarded to successful father following dismissal of mother's mobility motion.
Following the dismissal of the respondent mother's motion to change the children's primary residence, the applicant father sought costs of $68,490.51 on a full recovery basis.
The court found that the father's bill of costs inappropriately included fees for the entire litigation rather than just the motion.
The court rejected the father's allegations of bad faith and unreasonable conduct by the mother.
Recognizing the importance of proportionality in family law matters, the court fixed costs at $6,500 inclusive, payable in installments.
Child placed in temporary society care due to risk of harm and incomplete kinship assessment.
The children's aid society brought a motion for an interim order to keep a one-year-old child in its temporary care and custody.
The father brought a cross-motion seeking the child's return to his care or placement with the paternal grandparents.
The mother supported the society's motion.
The court found reasonable grounds to believe the child would be at risk of harm if returned to either parent due to domestic violence, substance abuse, and lack of parenting experience.
The court also found that a kinship assessment of the paternal grandparents was incomplete and that placing the child with them would hinder the mother's access.
The society's motion was granted.
Mother's motion to change children's temporary primary residence pending trial dismissed to maintain status quo.
The respondent mother brought a motion for a temporary order to change the children's primary residence from the applicant father's home in Waterford to her residence in Toronto pending trial.
The father had been granted temporary sole custody a year prior after the mother removed the children without consent.
The court dismissed the motion, applying the principle that established temporary primary residency orders should not be changed pending trial absent compelling evidence of absolute necessity.
The court found the evidence regarding the children's best interests to be incomplete and contradictory, making a change in the status quo inappropriate before a full trial.
