Melanie Sager

In a family trial concerning a young child’s parenting schedule, the court determined whether the father should receive supervised parenting time after years without contact.

Applying the best-interests framework under the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court found significant family violence by the father against the mother, rejected the father’s credibility on multiple material issues, and found on a balance of probabilities that he had sexually abused another child in his care years earlier.

The court held that supervised parenting time would not be sufficiently protective, would likely destabilize the child, and would adversely affect the primary caregiver’s safety and well-being.

Parenting time was denied entirely, and the mother was permitted to travel with the child for vacations on notice without needing the father’s consent.

The court issued an endorsement in a child protection proceeding to highlight the severe unintended harm caused by criminal release orders that prohibit parents charged with crimes against their children from having contact with them, without including an exception for family court orders.

The court noted that such release conditions effectively strip family court judges of their jurisdiction to make decisions in the best interests of the child, such as allowing supervised or expanded access when appropriate.

The court urged the criminal justice system to routinely include the exception 'except in accordance with a family court order made after today’s date' in such bail and release terms.

In a child protection proceeding, the mother was charged criminally with assaulting one of the children.

Her criminal release conditions prohibited contact with the children except as supervised by the child protection agency.

The family court issued an endorsement highlighting that such restrictive bail conditions, without an exception for family court orders, effectively strip the family court of its jurisdiction to determine the children's best interests and stymie reunification efforts.

The court urged the criminal justice system to routinely include an exception allowing contact 'in accordance with a family court order'.

In an ongoing child protection proceeding, the court issued an endorsement expressing profound frustration with the criminal justice system's handling of a mother's release conditions.

The mother, who pled guilty to failing to provide the necessaries of life, was subject to release terms that restricted her to supervised access with her children, without an exception for family court orders.

Despite the society and the children's lawyers supporting a transition to unsupervised access to facilitate reunification, the Crown refused to consent to a bail variation.

The court highlighted that such restrictive release conditions effectively nullify the family court's jurisdiction to make decisions in the children's best interests, causing unintended and severe emotional harm to the children involved.

The mother and father separated when their child was two months old.

The mother sought sole decision-making responsibility and primary care, alleging the father was abusive and that they could not communicate.

The father sought sole decision-making and shared parenting, arguing the mother alienated him and made false allegations.

The court found the mother's allegations of abuse were unsubstantiated and that she had manufactured conflict and unnecessarily involved the police.

Finding both parents capable but the mother unwilling to foster the father-child relationship, the court ordered joint decision-making responsibility and a shared parenting schedule that departed from the AFCC guidelines to protect the child's relationship with the father.

The father brought a Motion to Change seeking primary care, sole decision-making responsibility, and child support.

The mother sought changes to travel consent, holiday schedules, and retroactive child support.

The court found no material change in circumstances regarding the week-to-week shared parenting schedule and dismissed the father's request for primary care.

However, the court found a material change regarding decision-making, ordering joint decision-making instead of the mother having final authority.

The court also permitted both parents to travel internationally without the other's consent, terminated a police enforcement order, and imputed income to both parties due to underemployment and lack of disclosure, ordering the father to pay retroactive and ongoing child support.

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.

The children's aid society sought a finding that two young children were in need of protection and a dispositional order placing them with their father subject to supervision.

The mother had been hospitalized under the Mental Health Act after a crisis and subsequently refused treatment for her diagnosed mental health issues.

The court found the children were in need of protection due to the mother's untreated mental illness and lack of insight.

The court placed the children in the care and custody of the father, subject to a nine-month supervision order to ensure the children's special needs were met and to facilitate the mother's access.

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.