M. Linhares de Sousa

The applicant sought costs following a successful motion to change regarding custody, access, and child support.

The court found the applicant was substantially successful and presumptively entitled to costs under Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules.

The court noted the respondent's unreasonable conduct in delaying the proceedings and failing to provide complete financial disclosure.

The applicant was awarded fixed costs of $40,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The mother contested the father's request for unsupervised access to their child, who has autism spectrum disorder.

The father had a history of domestic conflict, erratic behavior, and mental health issues requiring psychiatric treatment.

The court ordered that the father's access remain supervised by his mother until he provides an updated medical report from his family physician confirming his compliance with mental health treatment and medication.

The mother brought motions for contempt against the father for failing to facilitate supervised access as ordered, and for joint custody with increased access.

The father cross-moved to vary the access order, citing concerns over the mother's past drug addiction and the child's anxiety.

The court found the father in contempt for deliberately disobeying the clear terms of the access order, but suspended any penalty to allow him to purge the contempt by complying with a new schedule.

The court deferred the issue of custody to trial but ordered a gradually increasing access schedule for the mother, transitioning to unsupervised and overnight access, conditional on her providing random negative drug tests.

The applicant was found guilty of sexual interference and sexual assault against his 15-year-old half-stepdaughter.

He brought a Charter motion challenging the one-year mandatory minimum sentence under s. 151(a) of the Criminal Code as cruel and unusual punishment under s. 12 of the Charter.

The court determined that a fit sentence for the applicant would be nine months' incarceration, and that the one-year minimum was not grossly disproportionate for him personally.

However, applying the Supreme Court's framework in Nur, the court found the mandatory minimum would be grossly disproportionate for reasonable hypothetical offenders.

The provision was not saved by s. 1 of the Charter and was declared of no force or effect.

The moving party husband brought a motion for security for costs and for the payment of a previously ordered costs award.

The responding party wife brought a cross-motion to amend her pleadings to claim unpaid salary and occupation rent, and for leave to file late expert business evaluation reports.

The court found that the responding party's effective residence was outside Ontario, she had an unpaid costs award, and she had caused substantial delay in the proceedings.

The court ordered the responding party to post $60,000 in security for costs and pay the outstanding $5,000 costs award, failing which her case would be removed from the trial list.

The court dismissed the responding party's motion to amend pleadings due to delay and unfairness, but granted her leave to file most of the late expert reports.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking Crown wardship of three children for the purpose of adoption by their paternal aunt.

The children were apprehended due to the parents' substance abuse and domestic violence.

While the mother had recently made commendable progress in addressing her addictions and mental health issues, the court found her plan of care carried substantial risk of future breakdown.

The children were thriving in the stable care of their kin family.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial, and ordered Crown wardship without an access order, leaving access to a potential openness agreement.

The applicant father, residing in California, brought an application under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act to terminate his spousal and child support obligations due to his recent unemployment.

The court suspended spousal support and reduced child support for the younger child, but declined to erase the substantial arrears accumulated while the applicant was employed.

The court also dismissed the applicant's requests for child support for the adult child living with him and for an access order regarding the younger child due to insufficient evidence.

The applicant was ordered to pay $4,000 in costs.

Following a motion regarding child support where success was divided, the court considered the issue of costs.

Although divided success normally results in no costs, the court examined the parties' offers to settle under Rule 24(5) of the Family Law Rules.

The court found the applicant's offers to be extremely reasonable and the respondent's offer to be unreasonable.

Consequently, the applicant was awarded costs fixed at $6,357.38.

The applicant mother brought a motion to vary a previous order, seeking the respondent father's proportionate share of their adult daughter's post-secondary expenses for her final two years of university.

The respondent brought a cross-motion seeking a declaration that the daughter was no longer a child of the marriage during those years, along with retroactive recalculation of child support and section 7 expenses.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding the daughter earned substantial income and could meet her own expenses.

The court also dismissed the respondent's cross-motion, finding the daughter remained a child of the marriage while pursuing full-time studies and living with the applicant.

The respondent's claims for retroactive recalculations were also dismissed.

A custodial parent sought child support for five children, including retroactive adjustment of support and reimbursement of special and extraordinary expenses.

The court found that the payor parent failed to comply with prior disclosure orders and provided incomplete financial information, requiring the court to rely on the best available evidence to determine income.

Applying the Federal Child Support Guidelines, the court determined that the payor’s income between 2009 and 2014 warranted significantly higher table support than previously paid.

Arrears for base child support and special expenses were calculated and ordered payable on a structured schedule.

Claims of undue hardship and lack of notice for special expenses were rejected.

The Children's Aid Society brought a status review application seeking to terminate its supervision order over a young child.

Both parents agreed to the termination but disputed the subsequent custody and access arrangement under section 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The mother sought primary care or joint custody with primary residence, while the father sought sole or joint custody with primary residence.

The court considered the child's best interests, noting the parents' high conflict, the father's pending deportation proceedings, and the child's positive development under the existing shared parenting arrangement.

The court ordered joint legal custody with primary residence to the mother, maintaining the child's attendance at an Ontario school, and granted the mother a restraining order against the father.

The accused faced 22 charges involving seven different female complainants, including sexual assault, unlawful confinement, theft, mischief, and criminal harassment.

The accused targeted intoxicated women in the Ottawa market area, offering them rides in his vehicle, taking them to his apartment, and stealing their cell phones.

He subsequently used the stolen phones to harass the victims and others.

The court applied the W.(D.) test to assess credibility, rejecting the accused's testimony as unreliable and contradictory.

The accused was found guilty on 20 of the 22 counts, with the court finding that he unlawfully confined and sexually assaulted multiple victims, stole their property, and engaged in persistent criminal harassment.

The applicant brought a motion to vary a prior spousal support order to continue support in accordance with the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and to obtain retroactive support after the respondent ceased payments when the prior order allowed either party to seek variation.

The respondent argued his obligation terminated automatically and opposed retroactive support due to delay in bringing the motion.

The court found the interpretation issue moot but held it had jurisdiction under the Divorce Act to vary support retroactively.

Medical evidence established the applicant was unable to work due to health issues, constituting a material change in circumstances.

Ongoing support was ordered at the low range of the SSAG and made retroactive, with arrears payable by installments.

The Crown sought admission of cross-count similar fact evidence in a multi-count indictment involving allegations of sexual assault, forcible confinement, theft, and criminal harassment involving several complainants.

Identity was admitted by the accused, leaving actus reus, modus operandi, and complainant credibility as live issues.

Applying the governing test from R. v. Handy, the court assessed whether the probative value of the proposed evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect.

The court found striking contextual similarities across several complainants, including circumstances involving intoxicated victims, use of a vehicle, loss of personal property, and subsequent communications from the accused.

Most of the requested similar fact evidence was admitted, subject to limited exceptions where the nexus between incidents was insufficient.

In a criminal trial, the Crown brought a motion seeking admission of a witness’s prior e-mail statement as past recollection recorded.

The witness had no present memory of certain events but confirmed she had authored the statement and believed it to be truthful when made.

The court applied the four-part test for past recollection recorded evidence set out in R. v. Fliss and affirmed in appellate authority.

Despite a three‑week delay between the incident and the creation of the statement, and defence arguments regarding possible tainting through discussions with others, the court found the record reliable, made within a reasonable time, and vouched for by the witness.

The statement was therefore admitted as evidence.

The court determined costs following a family law motion where success was divided between the parties.

Applying the general principle that costs follow the event but considering the mixed outcome, the court concluded that neither party achieved sufficient success to justify a costs award.

Each party was therefore ordered to bear their own legal costs of the motion.

Following family law motions in which success was divided between the parties, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The court found that neither party had behaved particularly reasonably during the proceedings.

Applying the discretionary principles governing costs in family law matters, the court declined to award costs to either side.

Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

On a voir dire, the court considered whether a lengthy videotaped police interview of the accused was voluntary and admissible under the common law confessions rule.

The defence argued that the interview involved oppressive circumstances and inducements and that the statement should alternatively be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter for breach of the accused’s s. 10(b) right to counsel.

The court applied the framework in R. v. Oickle and examined the entire context of the interrogation, including duration, questioning techniques, and the accused’s conduct during the interview.

The court found the interview was not oppressive and that the accused generally retained control over what information he shared.

However, certain comments by police suggesting that speaking could affect which charges were pursued created a quid pro quo inducement raising a reasonable doubt about voluntariness for statements made thereafter.

The court admitted the portion of the interview up to a specified point in the transcript and excluded the remainder.

The applicant sought reinstatement of spousal support after the respondent unilaterally suspended payments under Minutes of Settlement resolving family law issues following separation.

The respondent claimed the applicant removed household items contrary to the agreement and relied on a clause permitting suspension of support pending an accounting.

The court found ambiguity and contradiction in the settlement terms governing division of household chattels and concluded the agreement did not clearly resolve the issue.

As a result, the respondent was not entitled to suspend support payments.

The court ordered an accounting of household chattels before an arbitrator and directed that ongoing support and arrears be paid into court pending resolution.

The parties cohabited for 15 years in a joint family venture, during which the applicant contributed significant funds and labour to the respondent's real estate business.

Following separation, the applicant sought compensation for unjust enrichment and spousal support.

The court found the respondent had unjustly retained a disproportionate share of the accumulated wealth and awarded the applicant $548,880 for unjust enrichment.

The court also imputed an annual income of $100,000 to the respondent and awarded lump sum spousal support of $72,600.

Due to the respondent's history of non-compliance with court orders, the court granted vesting orders over three properties and a pension annuity to secure payment.