Melanie Sager

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a child support order dated April 6, 2009, seeking retroactive contribution from the respondent father towards section 7 expenses (special or extraordinary expenses) incurred between 2012 and 2016, particularly for the daughter's post-secondary education costs totalling approximately $26,906.66.

The respondent failed to respond to the motion and was noted in default.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that although a change in circumstances existed, a retroactive increase in child support was not warranted based on the D.B.S. factors.

The court concluded that the father had paid an appropriate amount of child support and that the daughter would not benefit from a retroactive award.

A costs decision following a trial on an application for access to a child.

The father sought access to his biological daughter, born in 2010, whom he had minimal contact with since 2014.

The mother opposed the access request and sought a restraining order.

The court dismissed both the father's access application and the mother's restraining order request.

This decision addresses the costs consequences of the trial, with the mother seeking $32,498.38 and the father seeking $17,736.95.

The court awarded costs to the mother as the substantially successful party, fixing costs at $15,000.00 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

This is a costs decision following the court's grant of a summary judgment motion brought by the mother (applicant) dismissing the father's (respondent) Motion to Change a custody and access order.

The father had sought joint custody, increased access, and a retroactive reduction in child support.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial and dismissed the Motion to Change.

The mother sought costs of $26,000 for the summary judgment motion, $1,000 for responding to a 14B motion, and $7,500 for time wasted on three previous court appearances.

The father opposed the costs award and sought to reserve the issue pending appeal.

The court awarded costs based on the mother's success, the father's unreasonable conduct throughout the litigation, and the complexity and importance of the issues.

The father brought a motion for interim sole custody of the parties' two-year-old child after the child sustained unexplained facial injuries while in the mother's care, prompting a child protection investigation.

The mother sought sole or joint custody.

The court found the mother's evidence regarding the injuries contradictory and her reliance on multiple caregivers concerning.

Concluding the mother was currently unfit to exercise custody, the court granted temporary sole custody to the father and restricted the mother's access to specified daytime visits without overnights.

A motion concerning interim custody and access of a two-year-old child.

The father sought temporary sole custody after the child sustained unexplained injuries to her face while in the mother's care.

The mother opposed the motion and sought sole custody with liberal access to the father, or alternatively, joint custody.

The court found the mother's evidence regarding the injuries to be inconsistent and unreliable, and determined that the mother had failed to provide adequate supervision and stability.

The court granted the father temporary sole custody with the mother receiving limited supervised day access only.

A father residing in Afghanistan sought an order for weekly Skype access to his seven-year-old daughter who lives in Canada with her mother, stepfather, and half-brother.

The father claimed he had a right to know his biological daughter.

The mother opposed the application, arguing that the child had no relationship with the father, believed the stepfather was her biological father, and that access would be harmful to the child's stability and wellbeing.

The court dismissed the father's application for access, finding that the child's best interests were served by maintaining her stable family environment and that the risks of introducing contact with a stranger far outweighed any potential benefits.

A family law trial concerning child support and special/extraordinary expenses under section 7 of the Child Support Guidelines.

The parties resolved all issues except the respondent father's share of special and extraordinary expenses claimed by the applicant mother for two autistic children as of January 1, 2017.

The mother sought contribution toward occupational therapy, cognitive behavioural therapy, applied behaviour analysis therapy, extracurricular activities, and post-secondary education costs.

The court found that extracurricular activities were not extraordinary expenses and dismissed that claim.

The court found that occupational therapy and cognitive behavioural therapy were necessary special expenses but limited the father's contribution to $175 per month based on the parties' limited means, rather than the proportionate income-based calculation the mother sought.

The court also dismissed claims regarding post-secondary education loans and prescription medications beyond a $200 monthly cap.

The mother brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss the father's motion to change custody and access provisions of a 2013 order.

The father sought joint custody, expanded access including mid-week overnight visits and school pick-ups, and changes to child support.

The court found no material change in circumstances warranting variation of the custody and access order.

The father's allegations regarding continued conflict, progressive hearing loss, need for American Sign Language instruction, cancelled visits, and other claimed changes were all found to be either not material or not supported by evidence.

The court granted the mother's summary judgment motion and dismissed the father's motion to change custody and access, while adjourning the child support variation claim.

The court also imposed a requirement that the father obtain leave before bringing any further motions to change custody or access.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to terminate the father's access to twin Crown wards (M.M. and D.M.).

The father had missed numerous access visits due to work schedule conflicts and other factors.

The society argued that the father's inconsistent access created instability and negatively impacted the children's behaviour.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial, including questions about the quality of the father-child relationship, the society's conduct in suspending access without court order, and the children's actual preferences regarding contact with their father.

The applicant father sought a declaration that the child's habitual residence was in Toronto, Ontario, thereby establishing jurisdiction for the Ontario Court of Justice to make custody and access orders.

The respondent mother had removed the child to Edmonton, Alberta in November 2016 without the father's knowledge or consent.

The court determined that the mother's removal was surreptitious and that the father did not consent to or acquiesce in the move.

The court found that the child's habitual residence remained in Ontario at the commencement of proceedings and that Ontario retained jurisdiction.

Motion for temporary child support for three children.

The applicant father was unemployed and receiving Ontario Works, claiming inability to pay child support.

The respondent mother sought to impute income to the father based on his education, work experience, and capacity to earn.

The court found that the father was intentionally underemployed and imputed an annual income of $40,000 to him, ordering monthly child support of $746 effective June 1, 2017.

The court rejected the father's claims that he had made exhaustive job search efforts and found his explanations for not applying to suitable positions unreasonable.

The respondent brought a motion to change a child support order dated September 22, 2008, seeking to reduce his monthly child support obligation from $211.00 to $100.00 or eliminate it entirely, claiming unemployment and inability to work due to age and arthritis.

The applicant opposed the motion and brought a cross-claim seeking to increase child support retroactively to January 2010, arguing the respondent had undisclosed income based on his ability to finance a $400,000 home and $15,000 vehicle.

The court found the respondent's evidence regarding his financial circumstances to be untrustworthy and determined that income should be imputed to him at $41,913.00 annually.

The court varied the order to increase child support to $378.00 per month retroactive to August 1, 2013, and ordered payment of arrears at $150.00 per month.

The applicant mother sought temporary child and spousal support from the respondent father.

The parties had a brief relationship lasting approximately 11 months (January to November 2014), cohabited for three months, and had a daughter born in October 2014.

The father claimed to have no income due to injuries and depression from multiple car accidents, while the mother sought to impute income of $500,000 annually based on bank deposits, lifestyle, and casino activity.

The court found the father's evidence regarding his financial situation to be dishonest and unreliable, imputed annual income of $150,000, and ordered child support of $1,263 per month commencing January 1, 2016.

The mother's claim for spousal support was dismissed as she failed to establish that the parties cohabited in a relationship of some permanence as required by the Family Law Act.

A protection application concerning two young twins (M.G. and S.G., born 2014) apprehended in January 2015 following the mother's physical abuse of her older children.

The mother sought return of the younger twins to her care subject to supervision.

The society sought Crown wardship without access for adoption purposes.

The court found that while the mother had committed serious physical abuse against her older children, she had made meaningful progress through extensive counselling and parenting programs over 26 months in care.

The court determined that the risks had been sufficiently mitigated to permit return to the mother's care subject to a strict 12-month supervision order, following a structured two-month reintegration period.

The decision emphasizes the importance of assessing current risk levels rather than relying solely on past conduct, the necessity of meaningful engagement with service providers, and the principle of least disruptive intervention consistent with child protection.

A custody and access trial involving two parents seeking sole custody of their three-year-old son.

The mother sought custody based on being the primary caregiver since birth, while the father sought custody citing the mother's emotional instability, repeated threats of self-harm and harm to the child, and mental health concerns.

The court awarded sole custody to the father, finding that while the mother adequately meets the child's physical, medical, and educational needs, her emotional instability and inability to control her behavior in front of the child creates a real risk of emotional harm.

The court granted the mother substantial access including alternate weekends and weekday visits, and ordered the father to pay child support retroactively.

The court also made critical findings regarding the inadequate response by Native Child and Family Services of Toronto.

A mid-trial ruling on the admissibility of voice recordings and certified transcriptions of telephone conversations between the parents in a custody dispute.

The father sought to introduce ten recordings of conversations with the mother to support his claim that she is emotionally unstable and poses a risk of emotional harm to their young son.

The mother objected on grounds that the recordings were made surreptitiously and that public policy should discourage such evidence.

The court admitted both the recordings and transcripts into evidence, finding either that the recordings were not surreptitious (as the mother had been advised of recording in 2014) or, alternatively, that the probative value outweighed policy considerations given the importance of the issues and the best interests of the child.

The respondent father brought a motion to set aside a default order made by Justice Nevins on January 26, 2015, granting the applicant mother sole custody of their child, a restraining order, and child support.

The father was not properly served with the original application, as the process server filed a false affidavit of service.

The court found that the father was entitled to have the order set aside because he was never properly served and had no notice of the proceeding.

The court set aside the default order and made temporary orders granting the mother custody pending a new application in British Columbia, where the child now resides, and granting the father Skype access to the child.

This is a costs decision following a two-day family law trial concerning custody, access, and child support of a minor child.

The applicant sought joint custody and shared parenting, while the respondent sought sole custody and retroactive child support.

The respondent was largely successful at trial.

The court awarded costs to the respondent on a full recovery basis in the amount of $7,459.95, finding that the applicant's positions on all issues were unreasonable, he failed to provide adequate financial disclosure, and the respondent's offer to settle was as good as or more favourable than the final order obtained.

A custody and access trial involving a 13-year-old child, Tamari McLeod, born to unmarried parents.

The mother sought sole custody and child support; the father sought sole custody.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer supported the father's position based on the child's consistent, strong, and independent wishes to reside primarily with her father.

The court found that while both parents were capable of meeting the child's needs, the child's clear preferences, combined with the father's more stable parenting style and the mother's use of physical discipline and yelling, warranted granting primary custody to the father.

The court also addressed child support arrears and prospective support obligations.

This is a costs decision following a motion to change a child support order.

The applicant sought to reduce his child support obligation based on his inability to return to work as anticipated.

While the applicant was largely successful on the motion to change, the court declined to award costs despite his success due to his unreasonable conduct throughout the proceedings, including failure to provide timely and complete financial disclosure, failure to comply with court orders for medical records, and causing unnecessary court appearances and delays.