M. Linhares de Sousa

A father brought a motion alleging the mother was in breach of a prior access order after she unilaterally terminated his parenting time with the parties’ two children.

The mother argued that several incidents during access demonstrated the father’s anger issues and justified suspending access or imposing supervised access pending a psychiatric assessment.

The court reviewed recordings and evidence concerning four incidents of parental conflict and concluded that both parents contributed to escalating disputes but that the children were not placed in serious jeopardy.

The unilateral termination of access was not justified.

The existing access order was reinstated with additional conditions limiting parental interaction and requiring the parties to avoid involving the children in the conflict.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking unsupervised access to his infant son, while the respondent mother argued that supervised access should continue due to allegations of abuse, concerns about the child’s distress during visits, and fears of international abduction.

The court reviewed evidence from supervised access program notes and found the father cooperative, capable, and receptive to guidance in caring for the child.

The court found no objective evidence supporting allegations that the father posed a risk of harm or that he intended to abduct the child.

The respondent’s concerns were not supported by admissible evidence, and her conduct had contributed to the termination of supervised access services.

The court concluded that continued supervised access was not in the child’s best interests and ordered a structured transition to unsupervised access, with incremental increases in parenting time.

The applicant brought a family law motion seeking multiple forms of relief relating to child support, section 7 expenses for a child attending university, spousal support arrears, and life insurance security for support obligations.

The court declined to order an ongoing reduced guideline payment during the academic year but required the respondent to pay the full guideline amount during summer months and two additional months while the child returned home.

The request to increase the respondent’s proportionate share of section 7 expenses from 60% to 70% was denied due to insufficient evidence and the voluntary nature of the applicant’s proposed income reduction.

The court also established accounting principles for determining any spousal support arrears and ordered the respondent to maintain life insurance coverage to secure support obligations.

The respondent opposed a motion by the payor parent seeking termination of child support obligations for adult children pursuing post-secondary education.

The court considered whether an employment severance payment should be included in the payor’s income for child support purposes and whether new academic evidence concerning one child’s post-secondary progress should be admitted.

The court held that severance payments functioning as income replacement are properly included in income for child support calculations.

Support for one child was ordered to continue temporarily until a fixed termination date to allow completion of studies, while support for another child continued because the evidentiary record regarding post-secondary plans was incomplete.

Retroactive section 7 expense contributions were also ordered and a nominal costs award was granted.

Child protection motion seeking an interim order placing three children in the care and custody of a children’s aid society under the Child and Family Services Act.

The society alleged neglect, poor hygiene, inconsistent routines, unsafe living conditions, and the use of abusive disciplinary measures.

Evidence showed the children frequently arrived late to school and that multiple support services previously offered to the mother had not been followed through.

The court concluded there were reasonable grounds to believe the children were at risk of harm and that a supervision order would be insufficient.

An interim care order and a psychological or parenting assessment of the mother and children were granted.

The father brought a motion to change a previous order, seeking to terminate child support for two adult children, arguing they were no longer in school and were alienated from him.

The mother opposed, seeking continued support, retroactive support based on the father's increased income, and payment of section 7 expenses.

The court found no alienation and held that one child, despite slow progress due to a social anxiety disorder, remained a child of the marriage.

Support for the second child was suspended pending documentary proof of progress in his college program.

The father was also ordered to pay retroactive support and his share of section 7 expenses.

Following a family law trial concerning custody and access of a child, the court addressed costs.

Success at trial was divided on custody, but the father was fully successful in obtaining unsupervised access.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court considered the mixed success, the absence of bad faith, and the parties’ unreasonable conduct contributing to high conflict.

The court also considered the parties’ financial circumstances and prior litigation burdens on the father.

Costs were awarded in a modest amount in favour of the father.

High-conflict custody and access trial involving two children following a brief marriage marked by extensive criminal complaints, CAS investigations, and prolonged supervised access.

The applicant father sought shared or joint custody of the younger child and access to his adopted teenage son, while the respondent mother sought sole custody, supervised access, and a restraining order.

Allegations included sexual misconduct toward the older child and concerns about parenting ability, but police and CAS investigations did not substantiate criminal wrongdoing.

The court applied the best-interests analysis under the Divorce Act and Children’s Law Reform Act and evaluated risk using a continuum approach to alleged abuse.

Finding extremely low risk to the younger child and strong evidence of a positive father‑child relationship, the court ordered joint custody with primary residence to the mother and a phased transition to unsupervised access.

A costs decision following a family law motion addressing retroactive child support, ongoing child support, section 7 expenses, and repayment of alleged overpaid support.

The respondent father was unsuccessful in seeking reimbursement for overpaid child support but succeeded in obtaining final termination of child support.

The applicant mother was unsuccessful in seeking retroactive and ongoing support.

Applying Rules 24(1), 24(4), and 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, the court found the father partially successful and entitled to a contribution to his costs.

Considering the parties’ conduct, the timing of a settlement offer, the complexity of issues, and the parties’ financial circumstances, the court ordered the mother to pay fixed costs.

Following a prior judgment requiring payment of monies, the applicant was forced to commence additional legal proceedings to enforce payment when the respondent failed to comply.

The court considered written submissions regarding costs incurred during enforcement proceedings between July and September 2012.

The court found the respondent provided no satisfactory explanation for failing to make the ordered payments without further litigation.

The applicant ultimately succeeded in obtaining the payments owed.

The court held it was fair and just to award the applicant her legal costs incurred in enforcing the judgment.

The moving party sought termination of child support for an adult child aged 22 and repayment of alleged overpayments, arguing the child had effectively abandoned post‑secondary education and ceased to be a “child of the marriage.” The responding party brought a countermotion seeking retroactive child support arrears based on the moving party’s increased income and requested ongoing support, asserting the child remained dependent due to interrupted studies and alleged mental health challenges.

The court found insufficient evidence of a diagnosed mental illness and determined the child had not meaningfully pursued post‑secondary education for several years and had withdrawn from contact with the moving party.

The court concluded the child had ceased to be a “child of the marriage” under the Divorce Act and terminated child support immediately.

However, the court declined to order repayment of alleged overpayments or arrears, effectively balancing underpayments and past support provided.

The parties brought cross-motions to change support obligations set out in their 2003 Separation Agreement.

The respondent sought to terminate spousal support after losing his job, while the applicant sought retroactive child support and increased spousal support.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the respondent's unemployment and the applicant's new employment.

The court terminated spousal support immediately and dismissed the applicant's claims for retroactive child and spousal support.

The parties brought cross-motions seeking primary care of their 18-month-old child.

Both parents had flexible work schedules and had shared care since the child's birth.

Since separation, they continued living in the same home, leading to significant conflict.

The court declined to name either parent as primary caregiver, instead ordering temporary joint custody with a shared parenting schedule.

To minimize conflict, the court ordered a nesting arrangement where the parent with care of the child has exclusive possession of the matrimonial home during their parenting time.

Child support was ordered on a set-off basis.

Following a four‑day family law trial concerning custody and access to a child, the court determined the successful party's entitlement to costs.

The applicant had been substantially successful at trial and sought recovery of legal costs under Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules.

The court considered the parties’ conduct, settlement offers, and the factors under Rule 24(11), noting the absence of bad faith and the financial limitations of the parties.

While the applicant claimed approximately $18,529, the court fixed costs at a reduced amount.

The respondents were ordered jointly and severally to pay the applicant $10,000 in costs.

The parties separated after a short marriage of less than four years.

The mother, who was the primary financial provider, sought sole custody of their two children, child support, and a denial of the father's claims for spousal support and an equalization payment.

The court awarded the mother sole custody and primary residence, with the father receiving overnight access every other weekend.

The father's claim for an equalization payment was dismissed due to the short duration of the marriage and the mother's financial contributions.

However, the father was awarded a lump sum of $8,000 in spousal support to address post-separation hardship.

The father was ordered to pay child support and a proportionate share of extraordinary expenses.

Following a motion determining whether the applicant qualified as a spouse under the Succession Law Reform Act, the court addressed costs.

The applicant had been completely successful on the underlying legal issue concerning spousal status.

The court noted the issue was fact-driven but required review of relevant jurisprudence and was important to the parties.

No settlement offers were presented and no party acted unreasonably or in bad faith.

The court fixed costs payable to the successful applicant at $7,892.95 inclusive of HST, payable from the estate.

A biological father sought custody of his three‑year‑old child, who had primarily been raised by the child’s great‑grandmother and later jointly cared for by extended relatives.

The mother supported the relatives’ custody claim and acknowledged she was presently unable to parent due to substance abuse and instability.

The court applied the best interests of the child analysis under s. 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, considering the child’s established bonds with caregivers, the father’s relationship with the child, and competing long‑term care plans.

Independent assessments from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer and a home study in Iowa supported the father’s parenting capacity and proposed family environment.

Despite the stability of the relatives’ current arrangement, the court held that the child’s long‑term interests favored placement with the biological father and ordered that the child relocate to live with him in Iowa, with structured ongoing contact for the Canadian caregivers.

The applicant sought a determination that she qualified as a “spouse” of the deceased under the Succession Law Reform Act in order to pursue dependant support from the estate.

The respondents, including the deceased’s children and estate, argued that the parties had not cohabited for the statutorily required three‑year period prior to death.

The court reviewed extensive affidavit evidence concerning the duration and nature of the parties’ relationship, including the timing of the applicant’s move into the deceased’s home, financial arrangements, family interactions, and documentary records.

Applying the factors for determining a conjugal relationship articulated in Molodowich v. Penttinen, the court concluded that the parties began continuous cohabitation around May or June 2009.

As the deceased died in August 2012, the statutory three‑year requirement was met, and the applicant qualified as a spouse under s. 57 of the Succession Law Reform Act.

On a temporary care and custody motion under s. 51 of the Child and Family Services Act, the child protection agency sought an order placing a child in the temporary care and custody of the mother under the Society’s supervision with multiple conditions.

The child had previously been apprehended due to domestic violence exposure, concerns about the condition of the home, and questions regarding the mother’s mental health and cooperation with the Society.

The father opposed the motion and sought to maintain Society care while pursuing access.

The court applied the statutory test under s. 51(3) and emphasized the CFSA’s paramount objective of promoting the best interests, protection, and well-being of children while favouring the least disruptive course consistent with safety.

Finding that the child could be adequately protected through a supervision order and that the mother had taken meaningful steps to address protection concerns, the court ordered the child returned to the mother’s care subject to extensive conditions.

The appellants appealed their convictions for assault causing bodily harm, arguing that the trial judge's verdict was unreasonable, that he erred in his assessment of eyewitness identification evidence, gave insufficient reasons, improperly relied on post-offence conduct, and failed to consider self-defence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's conclusions were reasonably supported by the evidence of independent eyewitnesses who observed the group assault.

The court held that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding errors in his credibility findings, properly applied the law regarding parties to an offence, and correctly assessed the post-offence conduct of fleeing the scene.