Family and Matrimonial Law - OCJ

A child protection trial involving six children where the Children's Aid Society sought findings that all children were in need of protection and sought Crown wardship for the four oldest children and a supervision order for the two youngest twins.

The respondent parents denied virtually all allegations.

The court conducted a complex hearsay voir dire regarding children's out-of-court statements and ultimately found all six children in need of protection based on evidence of harsh, authoritarian parenting, excessive physical discipline, emotional abuse, and exposure to domestic violence.

The court made three of the four oldest children Crown wards and ordered the youngest child returned home under intensive supervision, with the second-oldest child also returned home under supervision to maintain sibling bonds.

This is a costs endorsement following a trial on multiple family law issues including parenting, custody, child support, and a restraining order request.

The applicant (father) sought costs of $11,684.61, while the respondent (mother) sought no costs award.

The court found the father was the successful party based on the trial outcome and settlement offers made.

The court awarded costs of $5,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable at $100 per month commencing January 1, 2018, with acceleration provisions for non-payment.

An ex parte application by the Children's Aid Society of Brant for a warrant to apprehend two young children under section 40(2) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Society had involvement with the mother for approximately one year due to concerns regarding prenatal care, physical abuse, inadequate housing, and the mother's lack of cooperation with the Society.

The Justice of the Peace denied the warrant, finding that the affidavit failed to address why less restrictive alternatives, particularly placement with the respective grandmothers who had been involved in the children's care, were not available or adequate.

The father brought a motion to enforce compliance with a December 11, 2013 consent order, specifically paragraph 8(j), which required the mother to afford the father the first opportunity to care for the child when she was unable to do so.

The father claimed the mother failed to provide her work schedule and had unilaterally placed the child in daycare without offering him the opportunity to provide care.

The court found the mother's interpretation of paragraph 8(j) was incorrect and that it applied to all periods when she was unable to provide personal parental care, including work commitments.

The court found a material change in circumstances and amended the order to include specific requirements for the mother to provide her work schedule, school details, alternate childcare information, and authorization forms to service providers.

A summary judgment motion under the Family Law Rules in a child protection proceeding.

The Children's Aid Society sought an order placing the child in the care of the father subject to Society supervision for six months.

The father and child's counsel supported the order; the mother opposed it, arguing there was a genuine issue requiring trial regarding the credibility of the parties regarding a crack cocaine incident and the issue of access.

The court found no genuine issue requiring trial and granted the summary judgment motion, placing the child in the father's care with access to the mother at the Society's discretion.

This is a costs decision following a nine-day trial concerning custody, access, and child support of a five-year-old child.

The applicant was entirely successful at trial, obtaining sole custody with supervised access for the respondent, child support, and various ancillary orders.

The respondent conceded the applicant's success but argued no costs should be awarded.

The court awarded costs to the applicant, finding that while the issues were straightforward, the respondent's unreasonable and obstructive conduct during trial, combined with his aggressive and confrontational demeanor, justified a costs award despite the absence of a formal offer to settle.

Status review applications concerning three children found to be in need of protection due to parental substance abuse and domestic conflict.

The court granted custody of two older children to maternal grandparents under section 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The youngest child was placed with the grandparents subject to Society supervision for nine months.

The court established a five-week access schedule for all three children with their parents to minimize transitions and disruption while maintaining parental relationships.

The court rejected the father's request to have one child placed in his sole care, finding that keeping siblings together was in their best interests.

A mid-trial evidentiary ruling on the admissibility of three video recordings taken by the father of a seven-year-old child.

The father sought to introduce the videos to demonstrate that the child was comfortable and relaxed in his presence, thereby rebutting the mother's assertion that the child feared him due to an alleged sexual assault.

The mother opposed admission, arguing the videos were taken surreptitiously.

The court found the videos were not taken surreptitiously, possessed probative value regarding the child's alleged fear, and were admissible into evidence.

This is a costs decision following a successful motion by the respondent father under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

The father sought and obtained an order that the child be returned to New York State and that a non-removal order obtained by the mother be rescinded.

The father claimed costs at full recovery of $14,956.61.

The court awarded costs of $13,000, finding the father was entitled to costs as the successful party, but reducing the award due to the unnecessary attendance of two counsel at argument and considering the overall reasonableness of the costs incurred.

The father brought a motion for contempt alleging that the mother breached a June 22, 2011 final order by cancelling approximately 30 weekend access visits without good or valid reason, refusing to make up missed weekends, and refusing to provide report cards and authorization for direct contact with schools and medical professionals.

The mother brought a cross-motion seeking to transfer the matter to Ottawa, reduce access to once per month, obtain child support disclosure, and obtain permission to travel to Poland with the children.

The court found the mother in contempt of the access order, finding that while some reasons for cancellation were legitimate, most were not, and that the mother had unilaterally allowed her influence regarding the children's activities to override her obligation to comply with the clear terms of the order.

The penalty phase was adjourned to January 2014 to allow the mother an opportunity to purge the contempt.

Both parents brought motions to change a 2006 custody and access order.

The father sought expanded access, decision-making authority over extracurricular activities and Tamil classes, and elimination of the primary residence provision.

The mother sought sole custody, modified access terms, and retroactive child support from August 1, 2008.

The court found material changes in circumstances, including the father's controlling and inappropriate behavior toward the mother and child following the mother's relationship with her boyfriend.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, modified access to provide the father with alternate weekend access and mid-week visits, and ordered retroactive child support from September 1, 2009, with arrears of $14,221.

This is a child protection trial concerning access to a Crown ward.

The child, A.B., was made a Crown ward without access in 2011.

The mother appealed the no-access provision, and the Superior Court ordered a trial on the access issue alone.

The trial examined whether the mother-child relationship was meaningful and beneficial to the child as required under section 59(2.1) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The court found that while a meaningful bond existed, the relationship was not beneficial to the child due to the mother's persistent disregard of court-ordered access conditions, her pattern of encouraging the child to break rules, and her lack of insight into the harm caused to the child.

The court dismissed the mother's claim for access and upheld the no-access order.

A costs decision following a child support application.

The applicant mother sought costs of $33,006.67 after obtaining a decision on September 25, 2012 regarding child support for her son, retroactive support, life insurance coverage, and health/dental plan coverage.

The court found the applicant was successful on the retroactive support issue but unsuccessful on the life insurance claim.

The court rejected allegations of bad faith and unreasonable conduct by the respondent father.

The court awarded costs of $3,000 to the applicant, finding this to be a fair and reasonable amount in the circumstances, rather than full recovery of actual costs incurred.

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

The parties had cohabited since 2001 and had two children but never married.

They separated in April 2012 and shared custody on a week-about basis.

The applicant claimed he was unable to work due to medical issues and had no income.

The respondent, a registered nurse earning $83,000 annually, opposed the application and argued the applicant was intentionally underemployed.

The court imputed income to the applicant based on his capacity to earn as a skilled tradesperson and ordered the respondent to pay child support using the set-off method.

No spousal support was awarded.

This is a costs decision following a one-day family law trial involving custody, access, and child support.

The respondent (mother) was successful in obtaining sole custody and child support.

The court found that the applicant (father) acted in bad faith by failing to comply with financial disclosure orders, providing inconsistent financial information, and stopping child support payments despite having the ability to pay.

The court awarded costs on a full indemnity basis for support issues and partial indemnity basis for parenting issues, fixing costs at $2,500 inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST.

The court also ordered that the father could not initiate further proceedings without proof of payment of the costs order.

This is a costs decision following a four-day trial regarding child support for a seven-year-old child.

The father brought two motions to change: one for joint custody and one for child support reduction.

Custody and access issues were settled on the first day of trial.

The only issue at trial was child support.

The mother, who was unrepresented, was successful on the child support claim.

The court awarded costs on a full recovery basis to the mother, finding the father engaged in unreasonable conduct including failure to provide full and timely financial disclosure, providing misleading and uncredible evidence about his income, manipulating his financial affairs to reduce his income, and refusing a reasonable settlement offer.

The applicant mother sought temporary custody of the child with supervised access to the father, while the respondent father sought temporary custody with weekend access for the mother.

The father also brought a motion to transfer the case from Toronto to Peel.

The court found that the child had thrived in the father's primary care for several years and that the mother's allegations of abuse were not proven on a balance of probabilities.

The court granted temporary custody to the father, imposed strict conditions on the mother's access, and transferred the case to Peel where the child ordinarily resides.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a child support order from 1995 requiring the respondent father to pay $250 monthly for their child.

The parties agreed to increase support to $558 monthly based on the respondent's current income.

The outstanding issues were the applicant's claims for retroactive increase to March 2008 and contribution to tutoring expenses.

The court granted a retroactive support award of $5,533 payable at $350 monthly based on the respondent's blameworthy conduct in underpaying support, but denied the claim for tutoring expenses retroactively and prospectively.

The respondent brought a motion to change a child support order dated July 10, 1996, which required him to pay $200.00 per month for the support of his son.

The issue was limited to determining when the child became ineligible for support.

The respondent argued the child ceased to be eligible in November 2006 when he was 16 years old, had moved out, was not in full-time school, and had withdrawn from parental control.

The applicant contended the child remained in her care until 2008 when he turned 18 and was not in full-time school.

The court found the evidence inconclusive but determined the child had not withdrawn from parental control prior to age 18.

However, the court concluded that by spring 2008, when the applicant moved out of her home, the child was either not living with his mother or not attending school full-time, making him ineligible for support.

A motion brought by the maternal grandfather of a child in a child protection proceeding seeking to be added as a party respondent.

The grandfather claimed statutory party status under the Child and Family Services Act based on a written custody agreement signed by both parents.

The court found that the grandfather qualified as a "parent" under section 37(1) of the CFSA and was therefore a statutory party who should have been named as a respondent by the society.

The court granted the motion and ordered the grandfather be added as a party respondent with thirty days to file an Answer and Plan of Care.