McDermot

The parties brought competing motions to change a 2019 consent order that provided for shared care and joint decision-making of their five-year-old child.

The mother had relocated to Woodville and sought primary care and sole decision-making, citing a history of family violence, criminal charges against the father, and a complete breakdown in communication.

The father sought an order forcing the mother to return to Barrie to resume the shared parenting arrangement.

The court found a material change in circumstances, noting the father's abusive conduct and the unworkable communication dynamic.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making and primary residence in Woodville, and ordered the father to pay child support based on an imputed income.

The Applicant Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that a 15-year-old youth is in need of protection and an order for temporary Society care for six months.

The youth had been in care since an incident resulting in criminal charges and a no-contact order with the respondent mother.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing the youth was not competent to express views and preferences and disagreeing with the Society's medical decisions regarding the youth's psychotropic medications.

The court granted the summary judgment motion, finding no genuine issue for trial regarding the youth's non-Indigenous status, need for protection, and the disposition.

The court ordered a six-month temporary care placement, granted the Society medical decision-making authority, and ordered that access be at the youth's discretion.

The applicant Society brought a temporary care hearing regarding three children after the respondent stepfather was charged with sexually assaulting his stepdaughter.

The stepfather sought shared care of his two biological children, arguing they were in his charge prior to intervention and were not at risk.

The court found the children were in the mother's sole charge when the Society intervened, as police had already removed the stepfather.

The court held there were reasonable grounds to believe the younger children were at risk of harm, ordering that they remain with the mother and that the stepfather have only supervised access.

A restraining order against the stepfather was also continued.

Following a five-day trial on spousal support and a pre-trial settlement on child support, both parties sought costs.

The court declined to award costs for the child support settlement due to divided success.

However, the court awarded the applicant costs for the spousal support trial, finding that she was largely successful on the major issues, including her entitlement to compensatory support.

The court also found the respondent engaged in unreasonable litigation behaviour, including failing to provide evidence in chief by affidavit and taking unreasonable positions.

The respondent was ordered to pay $65,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The payor brought a motion to change to review spousal support after the expiration of a five-year period set in a previous consent order.

The court determined the review was a de novo hearing requiring no material change in circumstances.

Finding the recipient had a strong compensatory and non-compensatory claim arising from a traditional marriage, the court utilized the payor's post-separation income increases, setting his income at $724,797.

Spousal support was ordered for a total duration of 17 years with a step-down period, terminating in 2030.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a 2012 deemed custody order, seeking primary residence of her two adolescent children and child support.

The respondent father opposed the motion, seeking to retain custody, reduce the mother's parenting time, and obtain child support.

The court found a material change in circumstances but dismissed the mother's request for primary residence, citing the children's strong views and preferences to remain with their father and the mother's inability to manage the son's behavioural issues.

The court reduced the mother's parenting time in accordance with the children's wishes and ordered her to pay $280 per month in child support based on an income of $18,500.

The respondent father brought a motion for the court to reconsider its previous decision appointing a psychological assessor in a child protection proceeding.

The father argued the court made legal errors and that the assessor had a conflict of interest.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that Rule 25(19)(b) and the court's inherent jurisdiction to reconsider are limited to clerical errors or inadvertent omissions, not substantive legal errors which are the domain of appeals.

Furthermore, the Child, Youth and Family Services Act explicitly prohibits appealing an assessment order.

The court also finalized the terms of the assessment, adopting the agency's open-ended instructions while ensuring the father's indigenous heritage is considered.

The Applicant Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order for extended Society care without access for three children of Métis heritage.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding extended care, as the parents had consistently failed to meet the children's basic needs and follow through with services.

However, the court found a genuine issue for trial regarding access, noting the children's connection to their parents and the Society's failure to adequately address how the children's Indigenous cultural connections would be maintained without access.

The court ordered extended care and directed a focused trial on the issue of access.

Following a five-day family trial where the applicant was entirely successful, she sought costs of approximately $350,000 on a full recovery basis.

The court found that the respondent engaged in bad faith conduct, including hiding income, destroying evidence, and fraudulently conveying assets to his mother to defeat the applicant's equalization claim.

Consequently, the court ordered costs on a full recovery basis under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules.

After adjusting for proportionality and disallowing fees for a second counsel, the court awarded the applicant $250,000 in costs.

The applicant paternal grandmother brought a motion for access to her nine-year-old granddaughter following the death of the child's father.

The respondent mother consented to virtual access for the grandmother but opposed the participation of the child's paternal aunt, citing concerns about being undermined.

Applying the Chapman framework, the court found that the aunt had a positive relationship with the child, the mother's decision to terminate access was arbitrary and stemmed from estate litigation rather than parenting concerns, and the mother's actions imperiled the relationship.

The court granted the motion, allowing the aunt to participate in the virtual access visits.

The support payor brought a motion to change a consent order regarding child support arrears, seeking a stay of enforcement, the removal of a passport suspension, and the cessation of credit reporting by the Family Responsibility Office.

The Director argued the court lacked jurisdiction and that the issues were res judicata due to a prior dismissal in a related proceeding.

The court found the record insufficient to apply issue estoppel but held it lacked jurisdiction to reverse the Director's 16-year-old passport suspension or to order the withdrawal of accurate credit reporting.

The motion for a stay was also dismissed as the payor failed to establish a prima facie case for reducing the arrears payments.

Following a motion for temporary spousal support, both parties sought costs.

The court determined that the applicant was the successful party, as the motion primarily concerned the quantum of support rather than entitlement, and the final order was closer to the applicant's offer to settle.

The applicant was awarded costs fixed at $4,149.36 on a partial recovery basis.

The applicant father sought costs of $128,917.14 on a full recovery basis following the dismissal of the respondent mother's motion to change custody.

The applicant relied on an offer to settle that matched the trial outcome on custody but differed on financial issues, which were settled prior to the end of trial.

The court held that because the offer was not severable, the applicant was not presumptively entitled to full recovery costs under Rule 18(14).

Taking into account the respondent's limited financial means and the risk of hardship affecting her ability to care for the children, the court awarded partial recovery costs of $65,000, payable at $650 per month.

The mother brought a motion to change a final consent order, seeking sole custody of the parties' two children who have autism spectrum disorder.

The court found that the father's unilateral decision to move residences and change the children's schools constituted a material change in circumstances.

However, applying the best interests of the child test, the court dismissed the mother's motion for sole custody, finding the father offered greater stability and was more likely to maximize contact.

The court ordered shared care on consent but maintained the father's sole decision-making authority.

The applicant sought lump sum spousal support following the breakdown of a long-term marriage during which the parties operated a business together.

The respondent husband continued to operate the business post-separation, failed to provide financial disclosure, improperly deducted personal expenses from his business income, and obstructed the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court imputed an additional $75,000 in income to the respondent and found the applicant entitled to both compensatory and non-compensatory support.

Given the respondent's litigation conduct, failure to disclose, and stated refusal to pay periodic support, the court ordered lump sum spousal support equal to the respondent's entire net equity in the matrimonial home.

The moving party father brought a motion to change a 2015 final order that imputed his income at $70,000 and ordered child support.

He argued that his relapse into daily drug use and subsequent driver's license suspension constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the father's evidence regarding his income and drug use unreliable, and concluding that his license suspension was a self-induced consequence of failing to pay child support.

The court also added the father's unpaid share of orthodontic expenses to his child support arrears, fixing total arrears at $48,024.

At the commencement of a family law trial, the applicant moved to strike the respondent's pleadings for his ongoing failure to comply with multiple court orders regarding financial disclosure.

Despite being given a final opportunity by a previous judge to obtain his income tax returns, the respondent failed to request the necessary funds until the morning of the trial.

The court found the respondent's breaches to be intentional and wilful, and struck his pleadings pursuant to Rule 1(8)(c) of the Family Law Rules.

Following a 13-year marriage, the self-represented parties proceeded to trial on financial issues including child support, spousal support, equalization, and the sale of the jointly-owned matrimonial home.

The court imputed income to the applicant husband, finding he intentionally reduced his income to pursue a franchise opportunity.

The court ordered the partition and sale of the matrimonial home, rejecting the respondents' arguments that the applicant's departure from the home barred his right to realize his equity, but delayed the sale to allow the child to finish the school year.

The applicant was ordered to pay his one-third share of the home's carrying costs pursuant to a co-tenancy agreement, while his claim for occupation rent was dismissed.

The court also awarded the respondent wife non-compensatory spousal support for a limited duration to assist her in retraining.

The applicant wife sought to set aside a handwritten separation agreement, divide the respondent husband's pension, and obtain retroactive spousal support.

The respondent failed to file responding materials and was noted in default.

The court set aside the separation agreement due to lack of formal witnessing, lack of financial disclosure, and unconscionability.

The court ordered an immediate transfer of 50% of the respondent's pension and awarded indefinite compensatory spousal support of $3,700 per month, retroactive to the date the respondent was put on notice of the proceedings.

The parties separated after a 15-year arranged marriage.

The applicant sought equalization, retroactive child support, and spousal support.

The respondent claimed a large deduction for a promissory note to his father regarding the purchase of the matrimonial home, and argued he had a resulting trust interest in his mother's half of the home.

The court rejected the promissory note as unproven, drew an adverse inference from the respondent's failure to call his father, and found no resulting trust.

The court awarded the applicant an equalization payment of $181,909.96, retroactive child support of $11,352, and compensatory spousal support of $3,200 per month for 13 years, but denied retroactive spousal support.