Family and Matrimonial Law - OCJ

Following a trial regarding parenting and child support where the respondent mother was largely successful, she sought costs of $15,000.

The applicant father, who was self-represented, did not make costs submissions.

The court found the mother was the successful party on the dominant parenting issues and had made reasonable offers to settle.

The father acted unreasonably by aggressively contesting every issue, breaching orders, and engaging in family violence.

The court ordered the father to pay the requested $15,000 in costs, payable in monthly installments of $400 due to his limited means.

The Children's Aid Society brought a child protection application seeking a temporary supervision order for two children residing with their mother and stepfather.

The Society raised concerns regarding educational neglect, inadequate supervision, and the presence of an adult sibling with a history of sexually abusing one of the children.

Despite the Society seeking only a supervision order, the court found that the children could not be safely maintained in the mother's care due to ongoing risks and her lack of insight.

The court ordered that the children be placed in the temporary care and custody of the Society.

The children's aid society sought extended care and deemed custody orders for four Indigenous children who had been in temporary care for five years following the death of their two-year-old sibling.

The parents sought the return of the children under a supervision order.

The court found the children remained in need of protection due to the mother's severe anxiety, which manifested in unfounded medical and sexual abuse allegations, and the parents' historical neglect.

Applying the best interests of the child test under the CYFSA and the Federal Act, the court granted the society's plan, placing two children in extended society care and two in the deemed custody of kin caregivers.

Supervised access was ordered for three children, while no access was ordered for one child whose severe special needs resulted in extreme dysregulation following parental visits.

The father sought to change the children's primary residence from Thunder Bay to London, Ontario, and sought sole custody, alleging the mother had mental health issues and failed to address the children's special needs.

The mother opposed the relocation and sought to retain primary care and decision-making.

The court found the mother was the primary parent and the children's status quo was with her.

Applying the Children's Law Reform Act and common law principles, the court determined that the father failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances or that the relocation was in the children's best interests, noting his history of undermining the mother and his own move from Thunder Bay.

The court dismissed the father's request for relocation and granted the mother sole decision-making authority and primary residence, with specified parenting time for the father and an order for child support arrears and ongoing support.

The payor brought a motion to retroactively vary child support for the period from August 2014 to May 2019.

The court imputed income to the payor by adding back unreasonable rental interest and business losses, finding that the payor failed to justify these deductions.

The decision affirmed that variation applications cannot serve as appeals of prior orders, limiting the review of circumstances to those occurring after the last judicial determination.

Child support was varied for the years 2016-2019 based on the re-calculated income.

This decision concerns the temporary care and custody of a child, S., apprehended at birth by the Children's Aid Society.

The agency relied on a prior parenting assessment report regarding the parents' first child, which the court ultimately rejected due to concerns about the assessor's qualifications, methodology, and potential bias, particularly concerning the Metis mother.

Despite the child's serious medical condition, the court found no evidence that the mother was unable or unwilling to provide necessary medical care.

The court emphasized that children should not be removed from parents solely because specialized medical services are not available in their rural community.

The court ordered the child to be returned to the mother's temporary care, subject to supervision and a detailed plan for medical support and training.

This is a child protection trial involving two adolescent children who were found to be in need of protection due to ongoing domestic violence, physical abuse, emotional abuse, and controlling behaviour by the father towards both the mother and children.

The court found that the children suffered serious emotional harm including anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder.

The mother was granted sole custody of the children.

The father was denied access to the children, and a restraining order was imposed prohibiting him from contacting or coming within 500 metres of the mother and children.

The court rejected the father's request for joint custody and reunification efforts, finding that the children's clearly expressed wishes not to have contact with their father should be respected, and that the father had demonstrated no insight into the harm he caused and remained unwilling to engage appropriately with professionals.

The applicant sought child support for her son Lukas from the respondent father.

The central issue was determining the respondent's annual income for child support purposes.

The respondent, a self-employed plumber, declared minimal income of approximately $9,744 annually while maintaining expenses of $55,674 and paying $665 monthly in child support for another child.

The court found this financial picture implausible and drew an adverse inference that the respondent was earning substantially more than declared.

The court imputed annual net income of $45,000 based on the respondent's prior employment history and current lifestyle, resulting in monthly child support of $418 and arrears of $14,186.

The respondent sought to amend his pleadings to advance claims for joint custody, child support, and access to the subject child, and to re-open a partially heard motion for summary judgment.

The court found that while the respondent had a right to amend pleadings under the Family Law Rules, many of the proposed claims lacked legal or evidential merit, including joint custody, section 7 extraordinary expenses for transportation, and a restraining order.

The court permitted amendment only for access-related claims, adjusted temporary child support based on the respondent's disclosed income, and scheduled the motion for summary judgment to continue.

The court emphasized that the respondent's primary deficiency was not deficient pleadings but rather the lack of a practical and workable access plan.

A child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act in which the Halton Children's Aid Society sought a finding that a child was in need of protection under sections 37(2)(f) and (g) due to emotional harm caused by parental conflict, particularly the mother's unfounded allegations of abuse against the father.

The Society sought placement of the child in the father's custody with supervised access for the mother.

The mother opposed the application and sought dismissal or, alternatively, joint and equally shared custody.

The court found the child was in need of protection, placed the child in the father's exclusive care and custody, and ordered supervised access for the mother under a one-year supervision order.

This is a costs decision following the court's determination of two motions: the respondent's motion for summary judgment and the applicant's motion for temporary child support.

The court granted partial summary judgment to the applicant on the issue of entitlement to child support and awarded both retroactive and prospective temporary child support.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of $17,789.72, arguing success, failure of the respondent to make settlement offers, unreasonable litigation behavior, and bad faith.

The respondent argued no costs should be awarded or alternatively costs should be limited to half of partial indemnity costs due to divided success.

The court awarded the applicant full indemnity costs, finding the applicant was substantially successful, the respondent engaged in unreasonable behavior including refusing to respond to settlement offers and bringing numerous unsuccessful procedural motions, and while not finding bad faith, the respondent's conduct warranted full cost recovery.

This is a costs endorsement arising from a 15-day motion to change trial heard between April and August 2015.

The respondent sought full recovery of costs totalling $78,812.17, arguing he was successful on the motion and that the applicant acted unreasonably and in bad faith.

The applicant opposed the costs award, citing her limited financial means (Ontario Works recipient), the reasonableness of her conduct in making settlement offers, and the excessiveness of the respondent's counsel's time.

The court found the respondent was the successful party and presumptively entitled to costs.

After applying the factors under the Family Law Rules, the court awarded substantial costs of $68,552.00 (after deducting discretionary law clerk expenses), payable at a minimum of $500 per month, finding the applicant acted unreasonably throughout the litigation and significantly increased the respondent's costs through obstruction and refusal to settle.

The applicant brought a motion under the Hague Convention seeking to enforce a Superior Court order for Skype access by requiring the respondent to produce the three children at a supervised access centre.

The applicant, a British citizen residing in Japan, sought to compel compliance with a 2011 access order.

The respondent, a Canadian citizen residing in Ontario with the children, opposed the motion, arguing the children were unenthusiastic about the access.

The court declined to grant the order, finding that Skype access at a supervised access centre without a forward-looking plan would not be in the children's best interests and that the enforcement matter was inextricably linked to unresolved issues in the underlying Superior Court action.

A motion brought by the respondent mother to extend time for filing an Answer in a child protection proceeding.

The mother had been granted multiple extensions to file her Answer but failed to comply on three separate occasions.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding that further delay would be harmful to the best interests of the very young children involved.

The court emphasized the statutory urgency requirements in child protection matters and the prejudicial effects of delay on children's welfare and permanency planning.

A status review application under the Child and Family Services Act concerning a child apprehended due to inadequate parental care and weight loss.

The child's mother sought return of the child to her care under supervision, while the Children's Aid Society sought a Crown wardship order without access.

The court found that despite the mother's cognitive limitations, the substantial supports now in place—including counselling, parenting enhancement services, and community support—were sufficient to mitigate the original risk factors.

The court ordered the child returned to the mother's care under a 12-month supervision order with specific conditions.

A child protection application brought by the agency seeking custody orders for two children under section 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The mother opposed the application and sought dismissal, alternatively requesting return of the younger child and generous access to both children.

The court found both children to be in need of protection based on risk of physical and emotional harm, and made custody orders in favour of both fathers with supervised and unsupervised access provisions for the mother.

The case involved complex procedural issues, the mother's non-cooperation with assessments, and consideration of the children's wishes and best interests.

A motion for summary judgment brought by the parents seeking termination of a Crown wardship order and placement of two children in their permanent care with society supervision.

The parents sought final orders regarding access to foster parents.

The Children's Aid Society initially sought a termination of the Crown wardship order and society supervision, but later amended its position to seek more structured access between the children and foster parents.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer opposed the summary judgment motion, arguing that conflicting evidence regarding the children's views and preferences required a trial.

The court granted the parents' summary judgment motion, finding no genuine issue for trial despite the children's expressed wishes to maintain contact with foster parents, based on uncontested material facts regarding the foster parents' inappropriate conduct and manipulation during the reunification process.

A motion to vary custody and access orders in a high-conflict family law matter.

The applicant mother sought to maintain sole custody with specified access to the respondent father, while the respondent father sought sole custody of two minor children.

The court found the mother had demonstrated an inability to comply with court orders, engaged in confrontational and aggressive behavior, and made unilateral decisions regarding the children's residence and access without consent.

The court granted sole custody to the father, finding this was in the best interests of the children, and imposed restrictions on the mother's access including a period of telephone-only contact followed by supervised weekend visits.

The mother was found in contempt of prior orders.

In a high-conflict family law matter, the respondent mother sought to suspend the applicant father's access to two young children based on allegations of physical assault and threats, citing criminal charges pending against him.

The applicant father sought to change custody in his favour.

The court dismissed both motions, finding the evidence inconclusive and conflicting.

The court reinstated the consent final order from July 2011 with a police assistance clause, holding that access should only be suspended in extreme circumstances and that the presumption of regular access by a non-custodial parent is in the best interests of children.

The court also imposed restrictions on future motions without leave.

A motion hearing regarding the respondent mother's legal aid certificate in a child protection proceeding.

The respondent mother's lawyer was removed as counsel of record in February 2012 due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship, six months before the scheduled trial.

Legal Aid Ontario refused the mother's request for a new lawyer, citing that a breakdown in the lawyer-client relationship is not sufficient grounds for a change of counsel.

The court found that the respondent mother has a constitutional right to counsel and that all four criteria from New Brunswick v. J.G. appear to be satisfied.

The matter was adjourned to allow Legal Aid Ontario and the Attorney General of Ontario to make submissions on whether the court should appoint publicly funded counsel.