Nicole Tellier

The applicant mother sought sole decision-making responsibility, primary residence, and supervised parenting time for the parties' five-year-old child, as well as child support.

The respondent father, who struggled with substance misuse and mental health issues, did not attend the trial.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making and primary residence, and ordered that the father's parenting time be supervised.

The court declined to impute income to the father for prospective child support due to his addiction and unstable work history, but ordered him to pay $3,114 in retroactive child support arrears.

The applicant father sought an order for a Voice of the Child Report (VCR) for his two children (aged 8 and 6) to ascertain their views and preferences regarding a proposed expansion of his parenting time.

This motion was brought in the context of a review provision in a prior consent parenting order, which did not require a material change in circumstances.

The respondent mother objected to the VCR, primarily due to concerns about potential parental influence on the children's statements.

The court granted the father's motion, ordering the VCR to be conducted by a privately retained mental health professional following the Office of the Children's Lawyer methodology, and clarified that potential parental influence goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.

The court also declined to order the VCR professional to contact the children's therapist, upholding privacy principles and standard VCR methodology.

The moving party brought a motion to change seeking to terminate his spousal support obligation upon his retirement at age 65, and a retroactive reduction.

The responding party opposed the motion, requesting that income continue to be imputed to the moving party.

The court found that the moving party's retirement constituted a material change in circumstances under the Divorce Act.

The court declined to impute income to either party post-retirement and calculated the 2022 support obligation using the mid-range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The court ordered the spousal support obligation to terminate at the end of 2022, with outstanding arrears and costs to be paid from the moving party's locked-in retirement funds.

Following an 11-day trial regarding parenting arrangements, the successful applicant sought costs of $10,000.

The respondent argued for a nominal award of $2,000 due to his limited ability to pay.

The court found the applicant was entirely successful and the respondent's conduct unreasonably lengthened the trial.

Despite the applicant's full indemnity costs approaching $90,000, the court accepted her request for $10,000 as appropriate given the respondent's limited means.

The court also ordered that the respondent cannot initiate new proceedings without leave if he defaults on the first $2,000 installment.

This ruling addresses costs arising from two related motions in a family law proceeding: a main motion for partition and sale of properties, and an urgent enforcement motion.

The applicant wife, Susan, was largely successful in both motions, securing orders for the sale of all four properties and the enforcement of a third-party purchase.

The respondent husband, William, resisted the sales and sought to purchase one property himself under complex terms.

The court found Susan's conduct reasonable and her success complete, having achieved a better outcome than her settlement offer.

While Susan sought full recovery, the court discounted her claimed hours for the main motion by 25% due to insufficient detail in her Bill of Costs and excluded time spent on negotiations for the enforcement motion, ultimately awarding her $58,308.00 in total costs.

The mother sought sole decision-making responsibility and restricted parenting time for the father, citing a history of family violence and the father's untreated mental health issues.

The father sought joint or parallel decision-making and expanded parenting time, including overnights.

The court applied the newly amended Children's Law Reform Act, finding that the father had perpetrated significant family violence and struggled with emotional regulation.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and ordered that the father's parenting time remain restricted to daytime visits until he obtains a psychiatric assessment and demonstrates sustained compliance with a mental health treatment plan.

The applicant wife brought a motion for the partition and sale of four rural properties, including a farm and a woodlot, owned by the parties during their 25-year marriage.

The respondent husband opposed the sale of the farm and woodlot, arguing they were "farms" under the Family Law Act and thus protected from sale under section 11 prior to a final equalization determination.

The court found that while the farm was a "farm" and the woodlot was a "business" under the Act, section 11 does not operate as a complete bar to partition and sale.

Balancing the applicant's prima facie right to partition against the likelihood of section 9 remedies, the court ordered both properties listed for sale immediately, noting the farm's lack of profitability and the applicant's right to realize the highest market value.

The applicant mother sought to permanently relocate with the parties' two young children from Ontario to New Brunswick to pursue her studies and be closer to her extended family.

The respondent father, a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, opposed the move and proposed a shared parenting arrangement in Ontario.

The court found that the mother had failed to effectively communicate and facilitate joint decision-making during a temporary relocation period.

Emphasizing the maximum contact principle and the father's active parenting role, the court concluded that the relocation was not in the children's best interests and ordered a shared parenting plan in Ontario.

The applicant mother sought costs arising from three case conferences, arguing they were unproductive due to the respondent father's delayed and incomplete financial disclosure.

The court found that the father's failure to comply with disclosure orders and lack of preparedness impeded progress and warranted a costs award under Rule 17(18) of the Family Law Rules.

The court awarded the mother costs on a substantial indemnity basis, fixed at $6,441.00 inclusive of HST.

The applicants brought a non-party production motion in a multi-party Children’s Law Reform Act application concerning the future care of three Indigenous children.

The motion sought records from Probation and Parole Services, the Ontario Provincial Police, and Payukotayno-James and Hudson’s Bay Family Services regarding the respondent parents and the children's older siblings.

The court granted the production order, finding the records relevant to determining the children's best interests and understanding the family's history, including constitutional questions related to Indigenous inherent rights.

The court balanced privacy interests against the need for full disclosure, noting the parents' non-engagement and the existing sealing order.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a final consent order to seek sole custody and primary residence of the child, citing concerns about the respondent mother's mental health and substance abuse.

The mother failed to file responding materials and was noted in default, but appeared at the uncontested trial requesting an extension.

The court set aside the noting of default to allow the mother to participate, given her mental health challenges, but granted the father interim sole decision-making authority and primary residence, with discretion to supervise the mother's parenting time, in the child's best interests.

The Highland Shores Children’s Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion in a Status Review Application, seeking sole custody of the child B.B. to his paternal grandparents.

The respondent mother opposed, arguing for genuine issues requiring a trial and seeking B.B.'s return to her care or placement with maternal grandparents.

The court found B.B. remained in need of protection and granted custody to the paternal grandparents, citing the mother's inconsistent access, unhealthy relationships, and lack of insight.

However, the court determined that issues regarding parental access, decision-making authority, and sibling access required a focused hearing, dismissing the mother's requests for a Children's Lawyer appointment and a Parenting Capacity Assessment as unnecessary for the custody determination.

The payor father brought a motion to change a final consent order, seeking to terminate his spousal support obligation due to his voluntary early retirement at age 60 and relocation to Mexico.

The court found that while the retirement and relocation constituted a material change in circumstances, the father could not avoid his compensatory support obligations by voluntarily leaving the workforce early.

The court dismissed the request to terminate support, instead increasing the monthly quantum based on updated imputed incomes and ordering that support continue until the father reaches age 65.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer brought a motion to add W.M., a family friend caring for one of the subject children, as a party to the child protection proceedings and for production of the Society's kin assessments of W.M. The Society opposed production on policy grounds and expressed concern about delay if W.M. were added as a party.

The court granted the motion, finding that W.M. had a legal interest in the proceedings and her participation was necessary to advance a plan of care for both children.

The court also ordered the kin assessments to be produced to the court for review, applying the likely relevance threshold and balancing probative value against privacy interests.

The mother brought a motion to extend the time to file a notice of appeal from a final order in a child protection proceeding.

The court first addressed a jurisdictional issue regarding whether an appeal from a final Ontario Court of Justice order lies to the Superior Court of Justice or the Divisional Court following the expansion of the Unified Family Court.

The court concluded that the appeal lies to the Superior Court of Justice and that the judge had jurisdiction to hear the motion.

On the merits, the court denied the motion to extend time, finding that the mother failed to demonstrate a firm intention to appeal within the required time, failed to adequately explain the delay, and that the appeal lacked merit.

The court also found that further delay would be prejudicial to the child's best interests.