Family and Matrimonial Law - OCJ

A trial concerning child support obligations for an eight-year-old child.

The mother sought to impute the father's annual income at $40,000 and requested retroactive support from July 1, 2014.

The City of Toronto, as assignee of support for a period when the mother received social assistance, sought to impute income at $44,500 for the assignment period.

The father opposed both requests and sought only ongoing support of $200-$250 monthly.

The court found the father had been deliberately underemployed or unemployed, imputed his income at $40,000 from July 1, 2014, and awarded retroactive support.

The father was credited with minimal payments made and ordered to pay arrears over five years.

Family and Children's Services of Renfrew County brought an emergency motion seeking to place access between the respondent father and the three subject children in the Society's discretion.

The motion arose following a conflict between two of the children regarding an allegation of sexual touching made by one child against the father.

The father's inability to move past the allegation and his characterization of the child as a liar created significant emotional distress for all three children, with two threatening self-harm.

The court granted the motion in part, restricting the father's access to the middle child while maintaining access with the two other children, and ordered the father not to discuss the proceedings with any of his children.

This is a costs endorsement following the court's dismissal of the respondent father's application to change a custody order.

The applicant mother, as the successful party, sought costs under Family Law Rule 24(1).

The court awarded costs of $2,000.00 plus disbursements of $1,304.40 for police occurrence reports, payable within 120 days.

The court declined to award costs for proceedings before other judges where costs were not reserved, and rejected the mother's request for additional costs based on alleged re-victimization, finding no authority for such damages in a costs decision.

A costs endorsement following a focused hearing on the issue of additional overnight access to the father on alternate weekends in a family law matter.

The applicant (mother) sought costs of $21,140.47 on a full recovery basis after being successful in opposing the respondent's (father's) request for additional overnight access.

The court awarded costs of $17,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, finding that the mother was reasonable, child-focused, and completely successful, while the father failed to serve any offers to settle and provided minimal evidentiary support for his position.

A child protection application concerning a First Nations child born prematurely to a 16-year-old mother.

The child was apprehended after the parents failed to follow safety plans.

The applicant society sought Crown wardship for adoption purposes.

The respondent mother proposed placement with her sister, C.A., as a kin placement.

The court found that the child has special physical, mental and emotional needs requiring specialized care.

After assessing the proposed kin placement and considering the best interests of the child under the Child and Family Services Act, including the child's First Nations heritage, the court determined that Crown wardship with placement in the current First Nations foster family was in the child's best interests.

The court made an order for Crown wardship without access for purposes of adoption.

A costs decision in a family law matter concerning a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings for failure to comply with court orders regarding disclosure.

The applicant sought costs of $7,925.26 all in, which was unopposed.

The court awarded costs of $8,000 all in (fees plus HST and disbursements plus HST), to be enforced as support.

The decision provides comprehensive analysis of costs principles in family law, ild are you ( of costs as an instrument of social policy, the relevance of ability to pay, and the importance of sanctioning unreasonable behaviour by litigants.

The Director of the Family Responsibility Office sought a default order and committal term against a support payor who had accumulated $174,043.50 in arrears on a $2,500 monthly spousal support obligation.

The respondent had a history of non-compliance with court orders spanning multiple years, including failed motions to change and constitutional challenges.

The court found the respondent had the ability to pay but deliberately chose not to do so.

The court rejected arguments that Gladue principles applied to support enforcement proceedings and that the matter should be referred to a Justice Circle.

A final default order was issued requiring payment of arrears within 60 days, with a 180-day committal term for default, plus ongoing monthly support obligations with a 5-day committal term per default.

The applicant sought retroactive variation of a separation agreement to recover unpaid spousal support.

The respondent had misrepresented his income as $80,000 annually when negotiating the agreement, but subsequently earned significantly more (averaging $182,012.50 annually from 2009-2014).

After signing the agreement, the respondent ceased support payments for over three years while earning substantial income, justifying his actions with false claims of financial hardship.

The court found a material change in circumstances and awarded retroactive spousal support of $102,787.75 (net of tax adjustments), payable within 60 days.

The court rejected the respondent's arguments regarding the applicant's alleged unclean hands and found his conduct throughout the proceedings to be blameworthy.

This is a child protection case under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act involving two children whose father, G.C., is a convicted child sexual offender with diagnoses of pedohebephilia and exhibitionism.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society sought an order removing the father from the home with only supervised access outside the home.

The parents sought to continue the existing arrangement where the father resides in the home during daytime hours but sleeps elsewhere at night, with the mother providing supervision.

The court found that the children could be adequately protected while remaining in an intact family unit with appropriate supervisory conditions, rejecting the Society's more restrictive proposal as unnecessarily disruptive to the children's best interests.

Motion to vary a custody and access order made on January 11, 2013, whereby custody of two minor daughters was awarded to the mother with biweekly and summer access to the father.

The father brought a motion to vary seeking to reverse the order and obtain custody, alleging material change in circumstances based on the mother's alleged non-compliance with 21 conditions of the original order.

The mother opposed the motion and denied the allegations.

The court found that while there were some instances of non-compliance, they did not constitute a material change in circumstances sufficient to warrant variation of the order.

The court dismissed the motion and imposed restrictions on future proceedings to prevent abuse of the judicial system.

A mother brought a motion to change a 1999 child support order, seeking retroactive increases from the original order date.

The father had not provided updated financial disclosure since 1999 despite multiple requests.

The court applied the D.B.S. framework and determined that effective notice was provided in June 2012 via registered mail.

The court found the father engaged in blameworthy conduct by failing to increase support despite steady income growth over 13 years.

Retroactive support was ordered from July 1, 2009 (three years prior to effective notice), with ongoing support adjusted based on current income.

The father was required to pay a minimum of $200 per month toward arrears.

A costs decision following a motion to change child support.

The respondent father sought to vary a child support order and recalculate arrears.

The applicant mother sought costs.

The court found that the respondent father behaved unreasonably throughout the litigation, particularly regarding his failure to provide adequate financial disclosure despite multiple court orders and motions.

The court awarded costs to the mother, finding the father's conduct was deliberately uncooperative and designed to gain advantage.

The respondent father moved to set aside or vary a warrant of committal issued for non-payment of child support arrears of $170,505, and a final default order.

The respondent did not attend the committal hearing on September 24, 2012, despite having notice.

The court considered whether the motion should be granted under Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules or Rule 19.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that while the respondent failed to meet all three prongs of the traditional test for setting aside a default order, the interests of justice favoured varying the committal order to reflect time served, particularly given serious doubts about the validity of the underlying support order that was the subject of enforcement.

A child protection matter under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act concerning two children in the care of the Children's Aid Society of Toronto.

The Society sought to make the children crown wards without access for adoption purposes.

The maternal grandfather brought a motion to be added as a party to the proceeding and to obtain temporary access to the children, with the intention of proposing that they be placed in his care.

The mother opposed the Society's crown wardship application and proposed placement with her parents as her primary plan.

The court granted the maternal grandfather's motion to be added as a party, finding that his plan merited consideration despite the late involvement and the precarious relationship between him and the mother.

The court also granted a graduated access schedule for the maternal grandfather while noting concerns about the children's adverse reactions to visits.

The respondent brought a motion to suspend or terminate the applicant's access to two children pending trial, following a section 112 report from the Children's Lawyer that raised concerns regarding the applicant's behaviour, including allegations of sexual abuse of the younger child and parental alienation of the older child.

The court found a material change in circumstances since the original custody order and determined that a temporary variation of access was necessary in the best interests of the children pending trial.

The court suspended access to the younger child entirely and restricted access to the older child to alternate weekend visits with specific conditions prohibiting negative statements about the respondent.

The respondent sought costs in the amount of $16,712.50 for motions heard on March 2, 2012, relating to child access and support.

The respondent was substantially successful on the motions, with the applicant's contempt motion and taxi expense reimbursement motion dismissed, while the respondent's motion to strike was also dismissed.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis rather than substantial indemnity, finding that while the applicant exhibited problematic litigation behaviour, this had been addressed separately through a security for costs order.

The court fixed costs at $3,500.00, payable within 30 days or at $250.00 per month commencing October 1, 2012.

A child protection trial under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act concerning whether a child was in need of protection due to risk of physical harm.

The Children's Aid Society apprehended the child following disclosures of physical and sexual harm by the father.

The society withdrew allegations of sexual harm at trial.

The court found, on a balance of probabilities, that the child had been subjected to inappropriate physical discipline by the father, including hitting with a belt on multiple body parts, and that the child had expressed consistent fear of the father.

The court found the threshold for protection was met under clause 37(2)(b) of the Act, finding the father's discipline was excessive and created a risk of physical harm.

The disposition phase was adjourned to a later date.

The father sought joint custody and 50% parenting time (or at minimum 40%) with his eight-year-old son.

The mother sought sole custody, day access for the father, retroactive child support from January 1, 2011 based on imputed income of $70,000, and designation of the child as a beneficiary on the father's health plans.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, maintained the existing access schedule with minor modifications, imputed income to the father for the period of intentional unemployment, and ordered retroactive child support from July 1, 2011.

The father's poor communication with the mother, inconsistent parenting, failure to comply with court orders, and lack of respect for the mother's role as primary caregiver were determinative factors against joint custody.

The mother sought child support from the father for their four children, requesting an imputed income of $40,000-$50,000 per annum based on the Ontario Child Support Guidelines, retroactive support from April 2011, and contribution to orthodontic expenses.

The father claimed an income of $16,000-$17,000 per annum and opposed retroactive support.

The court found the father's income documentation unreliable and imputed an income of $40,000 per annum based on the mother's credible evidence regarding the family's lifestyle during cohabitation and the father's intentional under-employment.

The court ordered ongoing child support, retroactive support from May 1, 2011, and contribution to orthodontic expenses for three of the four children, with arrears payments deferred for one year.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion under section 54 of the Child and Family Services Act seeking an order requiring the respondent father to undergo a psychosexual assessment, including phallometric testing, based on allegations of sexual abuse of two girls from a prior relationship made over a decade after the alleged incidents.

The father opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the statutory and regulatory prerequisites for ordering such an assessment had not been satisfied, that the motion was premature, and that the proposed assessment lacked sufficient evidentiary foundation and utility in a forensic context.