Family and Matrimonial Law - OCJ

Following a nine-day child protection trial in which the Society's application was dismissed and the child was returned to the mother's care, the mother sought costs of $5,000 against the Society on a partial indemnity basis.

The court applied the framework from Children's Aid Society of Hamilton v. K.L. and T.M. and found that the Society's conduct was patently unfair and indefensible, including: failure to disclose 400 pages of contact logs until three days before the final decision was rendered; failure to present relevant child welfare information to the court during trial; failure to increase access despite court direction and the absence of protection concerns; and failure to facilitate contact between the child and her maternal grandfather for over one and a half years.

Costs were awarded, but reduced to a nominal $500 on the basis that both Legal Aid Ontario (representing the mother) and the Society are publicly funded, and that limited public funds should remain directed toward the child's continued care rather than past legal fees.

The respondent in a family law parenting dispute sought costs of $4,050 after the applicant failed to file a conference brief or attend a scheduled case conference.

The court found the conference was unproductive due to the applicant's non-attendance and awarded costs under subrule 17(18) of the Family Law Rules.

The court reviewed the respondent's legal bills from California and Ontario counsel retained on a limited scope basis, restricting costs to work related to this step in the case.

Applying an hourly rate of $125 for the self-represented respondent's preparation time and allowing reimbursement for Ontario counsel fees, the court ordered $2,500 in costs payable forthwith.

The applicant sought compensatory and non-compensatory spousal support following marital breakdown and requested substantial income imputation to the respondent.

The court found entitlement based on economic disadvantage, relationship dependence, and ongoing efforts toward self-sufficiency, and declined to impute additional income to the applicant beyond part-time earnings.

The court rejected employability-based imputation to the respondent, accepting significant physical and mental health impairments, but imputed limited income from regular parental gifts.

Applying SSAG principles excluding social assistance and ODSP, the court found the ranges yielded zero support because of present inability to pay.

Entitlement was declared, no present payments were ordered, and review rights were preserved if a civil settlement or judgment is later received.

In a family law costs endorsement following a trial of competing motions to change decision-making responsibility, the successful mother sought substantial costs, while the father sought no costs or a significantly reduced amount.

The court applied Family Law Rules costs principles, including reasonableness, proportionality, unreasonable conduct, offers to settle, and jurisprudence on quantifying costs for self-represented litigants.

It declined to award costs for previously resolved issues and reduced recovery based on the mother’s unreasonable conduct and failure to make an offer to settle, while also finding unreasonable conduct by the father.

The court awarded partial costs of $4,200 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable by monthly instalments with acceleration on default.

Trial concerning the applicant mother's request to relocate with the parties' two young children (ages approximately 1.5 years and 7 months) to the Philippines, opposed by the respondent father who sought unsupervised and eventually shared parenting time.

The court found the mother had been the children's primary caregiver since birth, that the father had failed to provide any financial support for over a year despite court orders, and that there was a power imbalance constituting family violence through financial abuse and the mother's tenuous immigration status.

The court authorized the relocation, finding the mother's plan for the Philippines was child-focused and fiscally responsible, offering family support, stable housing, healthcare, and employment prospects unavailable to her in Canada.

The father was granted virtual parenting time, annual visits to the Philippines, and annual in-person visits when the mother returns to Toronto with the children.

Trial to determine parenting arrangements for two young children where the father has been convicted of sexual offences against a person under 16, is appealing those convictions, and faces additional charges of sexual assault and forcible confinement against the mother.

The father's criminal release conditions prohibit contact with persons under 16 except through supervised access or family court order, and bar attendance at public locations where minors may be present.

The court rejected both proposed in-person supervisors -- the father's surety lacked any relationship with the children, and the mother's proposed supervisor was unaware of the nature of the concerns -- and found the father's home unsuitable given the children's unfamiliarity with it and the unresolved criminal matters.

The court ordered sole decision-making responsibility to the mother with virtual parenting time twice weekly, subject to review upon changes in the father's criminal proceedings.

Mother sought primary residence and final decision-making responsibility for a child enrolled by the father in school in Elliot Lake pursuant to his existing final decision-making authority.

The court found the father acted within the scope of the existing order, having consulted the mother multiple times over a year before enrollment, while the mother was evasive in addressing the schooling issue and failed to pursue mediation or timely court intervention.

The mother's subsequent unilateral actions regarding medical contacts and vaccinations further undermined co-parenting.

The court declined to change the child's primary residence, maintained the father's final decision-making authority with modifications, and structured parenting-time to maximize the mother's contact including weekends, holidays, and virtual access.

Father sought temporary sole decision-making responsibility over child vaccination and an order prohibiting the mother from discussing vaccines with the child.

Mother opposed vaccination, seeking sole or joint decision-making authority, arguing the child was healthy and that the father had previously agreed to delay vaccination.

Applying J.N. v. C.G., 2023 ONCA 77, the court held the onus fell on the mother to rebut the presumptive safety and efficacy of Health Canada-approved vaccines.

The mother failed to adduce credible evidence displacing public health recommendations; her exhibits were incomplete, dated, or irrelevant.

The court granted the father temporary sole decision-making responsibility over vaccination, dispensed with the mother's consent, but declined to restrict the mother's speech regarding vaccines, finding the request too intrusive on a single evidentiary lapse.

The mother was previously found in contempt for intentionally breaching parenting orders.

The penalty phase was adjourned to allow her to purge her contempt.

Instead of complying, the mother absconded with the child to Jamaica, missing the trial where the father was granted sole decision-making and residence.

The mother was apprehended in Jamaica and faces extradition, while the child was returned to the father.

The court found the mother's actions demonstrated a flagrant disregard for court orders with no mitigating factors.

The court sentenced the mother to the maximum penalty of 90 days incarceration.

The applicant father and respondent mother engaged in a high-conflict parenting dispute over their four-year-old child.

The father had unilaterally relocated the child from Brampton to Wolfe Island without notice to the mother, effectively frustrating her parenting time.

The court found that the father had engaged in a pattern of coercive control, financial abuse, and psychological abuse against the mother, and had repeatedly denied her parenting time, including during COVID-19 lockdowns.

The court denied the father's relocation, ordered the child returned to the mother's primary residence in Toronto, and granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility.

The father was granted specified parenting time and ordered to pay child support based on an imputed income.

The applicant mother sought retroactive and prospective child support, including section 7 expenses, for the parties' four children.

The respondent father claimed a significant drop in his construction income post-separation and denied having additional income.

The court found the father was intentionally underemployed and had hidden income through a vending machine business and other cash ventures, imputing his income at nearly $100,000.

The father was ordered to pay ongoing table support, retroactive table support arrears of $37,849, and section 7 expense arrears of $16,712.35.

The Children's Aid Society apprehended three children from their grandmother, who had temporary care and custody, without a warrant based on hearsay allegations of drug use.

The society then brought a motion to vary the temporary care and custody order to place the children in society care.

The court found the warrantless apprehension was improper, lacking reasonable and probable grounds and relying on inadmissible hearsay.

The court dismissed the society's request to place the younger children in foster care, instead ordering them placed with their paternal uncle, while placing one older child with severe behavioral issues into society care.

The applicant father brought a motion to change seeking to impute income of $120,000 to the respondent mother for purposes of child support calculation.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion to reduce her child support obligations on a temporary basis, citing material changes in her financial circumstances since the execution of the separation agreement.

The court found that the mother had established a material change in circumstances, with her business revenues declining dramatically from $247,061 in 2010 to $41,766 in 2013.

However, the court rejected the father's request to impute income, finding his explanations for the decline in business revenues plausible and supported by the materials filed.

The court granted the mother's motion on a temporary basis, reversing the direction of child support payments.

The respondent sought to set aside the registration of a child support order from the Circuit Court of Broward County, Florida dated August 22, 2012.

The respondent argued that the registration should be set aside on grounds of lack of proper notice, lack of reasonable opportunity to be heard, lack of jurisdiction, and that the order was contrary to public policy in Ontario.

The court found that while the respondent had proper notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard, and that the Florida court had jurisdiction, the Florida order was contrary to public policy in Ontario because it imposed child support obligations significantly higher than would have been ordered under Ontario law, and because the applicant should have pursued a variation application under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act rather than commencing a fresh proceeding in Florida.

The registration was set aside and the original Ontario order was varied.

The respondent brought a motion to change child support for Margaret, an adult university student, seeking to terminate or significantly reduce his support obligations.

The applicant opposed the motion and sought arrears of support.

The court determined that support should be calculated under section 3(2)(b) of the Child Support Guidelines rather than the table amount, given Margaret's status as a post-secondary student living away from home.

The court imputed income to the respondent based on his corporation's pre-tax income after disallowing unreasonable personal expense deductions.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $814 monthly commencing July 1, 2013, with retroactive support for the period September 1, 2012 to June 1, 2013 calculated at varying amounts based on the respondent's income in each year.

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.

Consolidated child protection trial involving three children (S.J., N.J., and D.J.) where the Children's Aid Society sought Crown wardship without access for adoption purposes.

The father had a history of violence and anger management issues, including a guilty plea to assaulting two of the children with a belt.

The mother was passive and failed to protect the children from the father's emotional and physical abuse.

Despite both parents' participation in parenting programs, the court found they had made little progress and posed ongoing risks to the children's safety and wellbeing.

The court ordered all three children to be made Crown wards without access for adoption.

The applicant sought to establish access to his two children following a case conference.

The parties reached a consent agreement for supervised access on alternate Sundays.

The court addressed several contested issues including the location of supervision (community-based versus access centre), random drug and alcohol testing, parenting courses, mental health counselling, police checks, and the children's attendance at the applicant's wedding.

The court granted most of the applicant's requests while imposing conditions designed to protect the children's welfare and address the respondent's concerns regarding the applicant's past mental health and substance use issues.

The Children's Aid Society and Ontario Children's Lawyer brought a motion to dispense with service on the respondent father in a child protection application.

The father was subject to a non-association order and had been convicted of assaulting the subject child.

The court rejected the motion, finding no jurisdiction under the Child and Family Services Act, Family Law Rules, or common law to dispense with service on a parent.

The court held that fundamental principles of natural justice and section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms require that a parent receive notice and an opportunity to be heard in child protection proceedings.

The respondent brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order for final sole custody of the child of the relationship.

The applicant opposed the motion, arguing that custody requires a trial with witnesses and up-to-date evidence.

The court found that the respondent had been the primary caregiver since the parties' separation in 2006, that the child was thriving in her care, and that the applicant and respondent were unable to communicate effectively regarding parenting matters.

The court granted sole custody to the respondent and dismissed the applicant's motion for expanded access pending trial.