Melanie Sager

The respondent sought an order for the release of transcripts from ten past settlement and case conferences (2012-2020) and a waiver of associated fees, citing hearing difficulties and the need for appeals.

The applicant opposed, arguing the transcripts were irrelevant to the current appeals and that conference discussions are confidential.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no legitimate need for the transcripts that outweighed the confidentiality of settlement discussions, and affirmed it lacked jurisdiction to waive fees.

The trial addressed decision-making responsibility, parenting time, and child support for the parties' son.

The court found the mother's evidence lacked credibility and that she demonstrated poor judgment, impulsivity, and an inability to cooperate with the father and professionals.

Conversely, the father was found to be child-focused, cooperative, and credible.

The court granted the father sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of the child, establishing a new parenting schedule.

The mother was imputed an income of $47,000 for child support purposes, and ordered to pay prospective child support to the father, with her claim for retroactive support largely denied.

The father brought a motion to enforce a 2013 parenting order, alleging the mother's non-compliance.

The mother argued the children, aged 13 and 15, refused contact due to the father's emotionally abusive and combative conduct, which included involving police, interfering with their activities, and making false allegations.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding the mother's inability to force contact reasonable given the father's egregious behaviour.

The court also imposed restrictions on the father's future motions to prevent further harassment and misuse of the court system.

The Respondent (father) brought a 14B Motion seeking to lift the stay of his Motion to Change child support, following a previous dismissal with leave to re-apply.

The court found that the father failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances, did not provide full and frank financial disclosure (including unfiled income tax returns and corporate financial statements), and had not complied with previous court orders regarding over $49,000 in outstanding costs.

The father's affidavit was deemed irrelevant and unfocused, failing to address the deficiencies highlighted in the prior endorsement.

The court dismissed the father's motion to lift the stay and, consequently, dismissed his underlying Motion to Change child support.

The applicant father sought an order to maintain the children's permanent residence in Schomberg, Ontario, following a unilateral move from Etobicoke.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion for the children's return to Toronto, arguing the move was a relocation that significantly impacted her parenting time and decision-making authority.

The court found compelling circumstances for the father's move due to housing necessity and financial hardship.

Despite the father's non-compliance with relocation notice requirements and unilateral decision-making regarding school enrollment, the court permitted the temporary relocation, prioritizing the children's need for stable housing.

The mother's parenting time was adjusted to compensate for the loss of mid-week overnight visits.

The court emphasized that the father's conduct would be scrutinized at trial.

The respondent father brought a motion to lift a stay on his Motion to Change child support, which had been imposed due to his failure to provide financial disclosure and pay outstanding costs.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding he had not made meaningful efforts to comply with previous orders, failed to provide basic financial disclosure (including unfiled tax returns and corporate statements), and had accumulated significant child support arrears and unpaid costs.

The court also found his claim of a material change in circumstances to be weak and drew adverse inferences from his delayed bankruptcy discharge and continued lifestyle despite claimed impecuniosity.

This trial concerned parenting and child support for the parties' daughter, Melanie.

The father sought sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, alleging the mother was a flight risk and had poor judgment regarding Melanie's documents and travel.

The mother sought shared or sole decision-making and primary residence.

The court found the mother was not a flight risk and that the father had exaggerated or fabricated some claims, and that the paternal grandmother's significant involvement and negative views of the mother were detrimental to Melanie's best interests.

The court granted joint decision-making responsibility, with the mother having final say in case of disagreement, and ordered Melanie's primary residence to be with the mother.

Specific orders were made regarding document custody and travel restrictions.

Child support was also determined, with the father ordered to pay retroactive and prospective child support to the mother, and the mother to pay prospective child support to the father for a period.

The applicant sought an interim disbursement of $25,000 to retain an expert to review the respondent's income report in a motion to change child support.

The respondent, a church minister, had previously agreed to an imputed income of $300,000 but now sought a reduction based on a self-retained expert's report.

The court found prima facie merit in the applicant's argument that the respondent was attempting to relitigate the initial proceeding and that there were significant credibility and disclosure issues regarding the respondent's complex financial affairs, which were intertwined with his church and other businesses.

The court granted the interim disbursement, finding it necessary to level the playing field and that the respondent had the ability to pay while the applicant did not.

The applicant father brought a contempt motion against the respondent mother for alleged breaches of a December 2021 final order, specifically regarding facilitation of parenting time, provision of government documents (birth certificate, passport), and a list of medical professionals.

The court found the mother was in willful breach of the order concerning parenting time and document provision, but declined to make a formal finding of contempt.

The court emphasized that contempt is a remedy of last resort, and alternative enforcement measures, such as temporary consent orders already in place, had rectified the non-compliance and were in the child's best interests.

The motion for contempt was dismissed.

The respondent father brought a contempt motion against the applicant mother for alleged breaches of a final order concerning shared parenting, non-disparagement, and polite communication.

The mother admitted to not facilitating the parenting schedule, citing the children's resistance due to the father's behaviour, and unilaterally ceased communication.

The court found the mother intentionally breached the parenting and communication terms of the order.

However, exercising its discretion, the court declined to make a formal finding of contempt, noting that contempt is a remedy of last resort.

Instead, given that a temporary consent order for a gradual increase in the father's parenting time had already been made, the court converted the contempt motion into an enforcement motion, emphasizing the mother's obligation to comply with court orders and apply parental authority.

This was a family law trial addressing parenting issues for a 9-year-old child.

The mother sought primary residence and sole decision-making, alleging the father's history of domestic violence.

The father sought primary residence and sole decision-making, alleging the mother's parental alienation and mental health issues.

The court found a pattern of physical and psychological abuse by the father, witnessed by the child, and that the mother's actions, while at times interfering, were largely a result of this trauma, not parental alienation.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, ordered both parents to engage in counselling, and mandated reunification therapy for the child and father, with costs shared 25% mother and 75% father.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto and the father (R.C.) brought motions for the production of records from Boost Child and Youth Advocacy Centre concerning the child G.C.'s trauma assessment and therapy.

The society sought limited recommendations, while the father sought the complete file.

The court analyzed the relevance and privilege of the records under Family Law Rules subrule 19(11) and the Wigmore test.

The court found the trauma assessment report was not privileged, as the communications did not originate in confidence and its disclosure was essential for G.C.'s best interests and safety.

The court ordered the release of the complete unredacted trauma assessment report to the parties but dismissed the father's request for the balance of Boost's records, deeming them unnecessary at that stage.

This case addresses a father's motion to change child support and a previous costs order, and the mother's cross-motion for variation.

The court found the father's claims of changed circumstances (inability to find employment, homelessness) for 2019 lacked credibility and sufficient effort to secure employment.

While child support for 2020 and 2021 was agreed upon, the court imputed a higher income to the father for 2022 and 2023 due to insufficient disclosure and lack of credibility regarding his earnings and future earning potential as a paralegal.

The court maintained the equal sharing of section 7 expenses, departing from the presumptive rule due to the father's past choices negatively impacting child support.

The court also ruled it had no authority to vary the previous costs order, as it was a final order only changeable on appeal, and imposed a leave requirement for any future motions to change, contingent on the father's compliance with the outstanding costs order.

The father brought an urgent motion for the return of the children to Toronto, their habitual residence, after the mother unilaterally relocated them to Pembrooke.

The mother brought a cross-motion seeking an order to permit the relocation.

The court found that the children's habitual residence remained Toronto due to the father's timely objection to the move.

The mother failed to demonstrate compelling circumstances to justify the temporary relocation, and her allegations of family violence were not substantiated on the evidentiary record.

The court emphasized the importance of maintaining the status quo and compliance with notice requirements under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The father's motion was granted, and the mother's cross-motion was dismissed, with an order for the children to be returned to Toronto.

The trial addressed child and spousal support obligations and the mother's right to travel with the children without the father's consent.

The court imputed an annual income of $127,198.00 to the father for support purposes, finding his financial disclosure unreliable and his conduct blameworthy.

Retroactive child support was ordered from January 2016, departing from the presumptive three-year rule due to the father's blameworthy conduct and underpayment.

Prospective child support was set at $3576.00 per month.

The mother was found entitled to compensatory and needs-based spousal support, with a prospective award of $252.00 per month from February 2019.

The mother's claim for retroactive spousal support was denied due to unexplained delay and insufficient evidence.

The court granted the mother permission to travel with the children outside Canada without the father's prior consent, requiring only advance notice and an itinerary, citing the father's limited involvement and travel habits.

The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness brought a motion within ongoing child protection proceedings, seeking disclosure of case documents and the right to make submissions regarding a final supervision order.

This was prompted by an existing deportation order against the mother and one child, which is stayed if the Minister has an opportunity to make submissions under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, the mother, and the Office of the Children’s Lawyer opposed the extent of the Minister's requested involvement, arguing for limited submissions and no disclosure.

The court found it had jurisdiction, either explicitly under the Family Law Rules or implicitly, to order disclosure to a non-party.

It ruled that the Minister was entitled to make informed and meaningful submissions on all relevant issues, including whether a genuine lis existed between the parties, and ordered the society to provide past and future relevant documents, with strict conditions on their use to protect privacy.

The father applied to revoke the legal change of his daughter's surname from 'Russell' to 'Thompson', alleging the mother obtained the change fraudulently by failing to provide proper notice under the Change of Name Act.

The court found the mother intentionally sent blank papers instead of the required notice and affidavit of service, thereby obtaining the name change by fraud.

The court assessed the credibility of both parties based on their past litigation conduct and communication, finding the mother's actions to be hostile and vindictive, and the father's conduct reasonable.

The application was granted, and the name change was revoked.

Motion by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto to vary a temporary care and custody order placing an 18-month-old child (F.I.) with the father.

The society sought to return F.I. to the mother's care, subject to society supervision.

The mother supported the motion and provided evidence of material changes in her circumstances since the initial placement order.

The father opposed, arguing the mother had not sufficiently addressed her underlying issues.

The court found a material change in circumstances and ordered F.I. returned to the mother's care with society supervision, while maintaining the father's access rights.

The respondent brought a motion to change a child support order, seeking two forms of relief: (1) a credit of $60,000 towards arrears of child support, claiming he paid this sum directly to the applicant in October 2016; and (2) a credit against arrears equal to the cost of providing a vehicle to the applicant for her sole use between December 2016 and July 2018, arguing this was provided in lieu of monthly child support payments.

The court found the respondent's evidence regarding the $60,000 payment to be unreliable and unbelievable, rejecting his claim on credibility grounds.

However, the court found that the applicant had agreed to accept the vehicle provision in lieu of child support and granted a credit of $23,294 (representing 19 months of vehicle lease payments at $1,226 per month).

The motion was partially successful.

The applicant society brought a 14B motion seeking final orders within an Amended Status Review Application, requesting custody of a child for the mother and fully supervised access for the father at a professional access centre.

The society sought to proceed on an uncontested basis without the father's consent, despite the father being served during a period when time limitations under Ontario legislation were suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to lift the suspension of the time limitation period applicable to the father, finding it inappropriate to proceed without the father's participation given the circumstances, including the closure of supervised access centres and the lack of information regarding the father's recent contact with the child.