Civil Litigation - Defendant - OCJ

The respondent brought a motion to change a spousal support order dated June 20, 2013, seeking to terminate his obligation to pay $1,620 per month and claiming overpayment.

The applicant opposed the motion and sought adjustment of support starting December 1, 2023, with payment of arrears.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the respondent's retirement at age 67 following termination of employment.

The court exercised discretion to change support effective January 1, 2024, rather than the presumptive date of September 14, 2023, considering the respondent's higher income in prior years, lack of financial disclosure, and the applicant's financial hardship.

The court ordered reduced spousal support of $500 monthly for 2024, $300 monthly for January to July 2025, and no support thereafter, with arrears of $21,485.14 payable at $250 monthly.

This is a costs endorsement following motions where the court determined primary residence and decision-making responsibility for a child, and ordered the child's return to Ontario from Prince Edward Island.

The applicant mother sought costs against the respondent maternal grandmother and the respondent father.

The court found the mother was largely successful against the maternal grandmother and partially successful against the father.

While the maternal grandmother's conduct was unreasonable, it did not meet the high threshold for a finding of bad faith.

The court awarded fixed costs to the mother against both respondents, taking into account their financial circumstances and allowing for payment over time.

The respondent father brought a motion to set aside two final court orders concerning parenting and child support, arguing technological issues prevented his participation and that the applicant mother had agreed to mediation.

He sought leave to file an Answer/Claim, shared parenting, and recalculation of child support.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the father had adequate notice and made an informed choice not to participate, and that his claims lacked sufficient merit.

This is a costs decision following a successful application for a final restraining order by the Applicant, Sheronette McKenzie, against the Respondent, Cedrick Barrant.

The Applicant sought costs, while the Respondent opposed and sought his own costs, arguing the Applicant had not formally claimed costs in her initial application and that his offer to settle narrowed the issues.

The court found the Applicant was the successful party and that the Respondent's conduct, including making false sworn statements and attempting to retract them, constituted bad faith.

The court awarded the Applicant $2,062.25 in costs, emphasizing the broad discretion of the court in awarding costs and their role in encouraging responsible litigation conduct, even if not explicitly claimed in initial pleadings.

The applicant brought a motion seeking a final order for child support and contributions to special and extraordinary expenses.

The parties had consented to a child support amount lower than the Child Support Guidelines table amount, citing the respondent's obligation to a new family as a reason for undue hardship.

The court rejected the proposed consent order due to insufficient financial disclosure from the respondent and the principle that child support is a right of the child that cannot be contracted out of without proper justification.

The court issued an interim interim child support order and compelled the respondent to provide full financial disclosure.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a contested interim motion in a family law proceeding concerning grandparent contact.

The applicant (maternal grandmother) sought no costs, while the respondent (mother) sought $26,000, relying on a rejected offer to settle.

The court, applying the Family Law Rules and the Courts of Justice Act, emphasized that while costs generally follow success, they should not create "litigation chill" in family law matters involving children's best interests.

The judge found the respondent's offer to settle "stingy" and effectively meaningless, thus not giving effect to Rule 18.

Considering the complexity, time engaged, and the applicant's resources, the court fixed costs at $10,000, payable by the applicant to the respondent (mother) within six months.

The respondent (father) was self-represented and neither paid nor received costs.

This is a costs decision arising from two custody and access motions heard on August 11, 2020.

The father sought recovery of costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $3,957.59, arguing he was mostly successful.

The mother contended that success was divided and therefore no costs should be awarded.

The court found divided success on the issues: the father was successful on the primary issue of parenting time, while the mother was successful on the secondary issue of schooling.

However, the court found the mother's conduct regarding the schooling issue to be unreasonable, as she had agreed to keep the child in his original school but unilaterally removed him and restricted the father's access to information about the child.

The court awarded costs to the father in the amount of $3,000.00 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable within 60 days.

This is a costs endorsement following a two-day trial on a motion to change parenting orders for three-year-old twin girls.

The father sought custody and relocation of the children from Niagara Falls to Toronto.

The court dismissed the custody and relocation requests but granted the father extensive access on a graduated basis.

The court found divided success overall, with the father being the more successful party on the dominant issue of parenting time.

The mother's unreasonable behaviour in restricting access and failing to facilitate the father-child relationship warranted costs consequences.

The court awarded costs to the father in the amount of $6,000, inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, taking into account the mother's limited financial means.

The mother brought a motion for summary judgment on custody, access, and child support issues.

The court applied the two-stage test from Hryniak v. Mauldin and determined that while genuine issues existed requiring trial, these could be resolved through a mini-trial process with oral evidence.

The court granted sole custody to the mother, ordered supervised access for the father, and imputed income to the father for child support purposes based on findings of intentional underemployment and non-disclosure of earnings.

The applicant sought permission to issue an application requesting a Child Advocacy and Assessment Program (CAAP) assessment for the subject child, along with ancillary orders for Christmas parenting time, a prohibition against the respondent attending at the child's schools, and production of the child's personal documentation.

The respondent opposed the motion on the basis that section 138 of the Court of Justice Act prohibits duplicity of proceedings while an appeal of the prior final order was outstanding.

The court found it had no jurisdiction to grant the relief sought because there were no ongoing proceedings regarding custody or access to the child, as an appeal was pending.

The court held that assessments under section 30 of the Children's Law Reform Act or section 105 of the Courts of Justice Act cannot be ordered as standalone matters but only in the context of active custody or access proceedings.

The respondent brought a motion seeking a declaration that North Bay is the proper jurisdiction, return of the children to the District of Nipissing, interim custody, and alternative weekend access.

The applicant opposed the transfer and brought a cross-motion for a restraining order.

The court found that the children's ordinary residence is Mattawa in the District of Nipissing, where they had lived their entire lives prior to being taken by the applicant without warning.

The court determined there was no immediate danger to justify hearing the case elsewhere and transferred the matter to North Bay.

The court found the applicant's allegations of assault lacked credibility, noting the Crown had discharged the respondent at his preliminary inquiry.

The restraining order motion was adjourned to be heard in the proper jurisdiction.

This is a costs endorsement following a one-day trial concerning parental access to a three-year-old child.

The mother sought costs of $21,843 from the father.

The court found the mother was the successful party, having obtained an order for supervised access substantially closer to her position than the father's position.

The father exhibited unreasonable behaviour including failure to follow court timetables, delayed disclosure of criminal records, breaches of temporary court orders, and failure to make settlement offers.

The court declined to find bad faith but awarded costs reflecting the father's unreasonable conduct and the mother's reasonable behaviour throughout the proceedings.

This is a costs decision arising from a summary judgment motion in a child protection proceeding.

The Children's Aid Society sought Crown wardship with no access for three children.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer opposed the motion, arguing there were triable issues regarding access.

The court granted the society's motion for Crown wardship without parental access but with sibling access.

Foster parents subsequently sought costs against the Office of the Children's Lawyer on a full recovery basis.

The court dismissed the costs request, finding that the Office of the Children's Lawyer properly represented their child client's views and preferences and that no exceptional circumstances warranted a costs award against a government agency in this child protection proceeding.

This is a costs endorsement following a trial concerning parenting arrangements, child support, and spousal support for two children.

The mother sought $9,040 in costs while the father sought $4,221.

The court found the mother was the more successful party overall, particularly on custody and child support issues.

The father's unreasonable behaviour, including failure to provide complete financial disclosure and refusal to sever the custody issue, was a significant factor in the costs determination.

The court awarded the mother $6,500 in costs inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, payable at $500 per month starting March 1, 2017, and dismissed the father's costs claim.

A mother sought disclosure of her children's therapy records in the context of a Status Review Application challenging a crown wardship order made without access.

The Children's Aid Society moved to dismiss the disclosure motion and to strike the mother's application as disclosing no reasonable claim.

The court dismissed the disclosure motion, finding that the children's therapy records were protected by case-specific privilege under the Wigmore test, that the children had significant privacy interests, and that the mother's request was speculative and lacked relevance to the issues before the court.

The court also struck the mother's application for failing to establish a prima facie case for material change of circumstances or to demonstrate steps taken to address the protection concerns that led to the crown wardship order.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a child support order dated November 6, 2008, seeking to reduce his child support obligations for his 22-year-old daughter and to reduce his support arrears.

The applicant mother opposed the motion.

The Director of the Family Responsibility Office brought a concurrent default proceeding.

The court found that while there had been a change in circumstances since 2008 due to the father's additional health issues and age, the father's evidence was not credible and he had demonstrated a pattern of non-compliance with support obligations.

The court reduced the arrears from approximately $19,267 to $12,000 and set ongoing child support at $250 per month based on an imputed income of $30,440 per annum.

The court ordered the father to repay arrears at $200 per month during the child's entitlement period and $450 per month thereafter, with a default order providing for jail time for non-compliance.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services sought costs of $3,626.32 from the applicant following a motion to change regarding child support arrears.

The applicant had challenged arrears of $14,857.35, claiming the Family Responsibility Office had misdirected funds.

The court reduced the arrears to $2,000.00 owed to the Ministry.

The applicant argued the case was complex due to FRO's fund diversion and that he was ultimately successful in reducing the arrears.

The court exercised its discretion under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and declined to award costs to the Ministry, considering the complexity of the issues, the applicant's self-representation, the absence of the recipient at multiple hearings, and the applicant's limited financial resources.

The Children's Aid Society of the County of Renfrew brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that two children were in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act.

The respondent mother had a lengthy history of involvement with child protection services in multiple provinces, with documented concerns regarding mental health issues, substance abuse, poor home conditions, and domestic violence.

The court found that the mother had failed to put forward sufficient evidence to dispute material facts and granted summary judgment in favor of the Society, finding both children in need of protection.

The court also addressed the procedural issue of bifurcating the protection finding from the dispositional hearing.

A costs decision following a motion regarding parental travel with a child.

The respondent mother sought permission to travel to England with the subject child during the holiday period.

The applicant father brought a counter-motion opposing the travel, citing concerns about the child's return.

The court granted the travel with restrictive conditions, including a cash security deposit.

The applicant sought costs of $2,000 on a partial recovery basis, citing the respondent's failure to disclose material facts including her marriage to a British citizen and her work visa.

The court awarded costs as requested, finding the respondent's selective disclosure of information unreasonable and contrary to the principle of coming to court with clean hands.

Pre-trial motion decision in a family law matter concerning a motion to change a prior order that granted the applicant custody of two children and denied the respondent access.

The respondent sought to vary the order based on completion of substance abuse treatment.

The court addressed multiple pre-trial motions including: permission for the applicant and her spouse to participate in cross-examination via Skype from Denmark; disclosure of police records concerning the respondent; extensive mutual disclosure requests; and whether to set aside or stay prior court orders.

The court permitted Skype cross-examination based on financial hardship and the balance of convenience, ordered disclosure of police records with court screening, granted mutual disclosure requests, and stayed the order requiring production of children for supervised access while declining to set aside the original custody order.