Family and Matrimonial Law - OCJ

The respondent sought a final restraining order against the applicant and an order dispensing with the applicant's consent for the child's identification documents, citing a pattern of family violence.

The applicant denied the allegations and sought dismissal of the restraining order, proposing alternative contact restrictions or a delayed re-application.

The court found the applicant had perpetrated family violence, characterized by a cycle of abuse, and that the respondent had reasonable grounds to fear for her safety.

The court granted the final restraining order against the applicant, including restrictions on contact and proximity, and dispensed with the applicant's consent for the child's identification documents, effective immediately and subject to review after 36 months without incident.

The applicant sought joint decision-making and shared parenting, along with child and spousal support.

The respondent sought sole decision-making, primary residence, and child support from the applicant, with spousal support based on imputed income for the applicant.

The court found the parties had a high-conflict relationship and that the applicant's choices contributed to instability.

The court granted the respondent sole decision-making and primary residence, with the applicant having regular parenting time.

The court imputed income to the respondent for support purposes due to missed EI benefits but declined to impute income to the applicant due to her immigration status.

Spousal support was ordered payable by the respondent to the applicant, with arrears fixed, and the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) were adjusted due to the applicant's basic needs and immigration status.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking the return of the children to Toronto after the applicant mother unilaterally relocated them to Montreal without notice or consent.

The mother argued the court lacked jurisdiction and that the father had acquiesced or unduly delayed.

She also raised allegations of family violence.

The court found that Ontario retained habitual residence, rejected the mother's claims of acquiescence and undue delay, and determined that the alleged family violence did not constitute compelling circumstances to justify the unauthorized relocation.

Applying established legal principles for relocation, the court ordered the children's return to Toronto, emphasizing the importance of statutory notice requirements and discouraging self-help measures in parenting disputes.

The trial concerned child support arrangements for the parties' daughter, specifically the start date for child support and the amount of arrears.

The mother sought retroactive support from the child's birth in 2012, while the father argued for the date of service of the application in 2019.

The court applied the Colucci framework for retroactive support, finding the presumptive start date to be August 6, 2019, as this was when the mother first gave effective notice.

The court declined to depart from this date, considering the mother's significant delay in seeking support and the undue hardship a further retroactive order would cause the father, who was a full-time student with other children and student debt.

The court quantified the arrears based on the father's income from August 6, 2019, and set out a payment plan.

The Children's Aid Society of Algoma sought summary judgment in a child protection matter, requesting a finding of need for protection, deemed custody for the mother, and supervised access for the father.

The mother consented to the Society's proposals.

The father agreed to the protection finding and custody for the mother but contested the requirement for supervised access to default to a supervised access centre.

The court granted the Society's motion, finding the child in need of protection, awarding custody to the mother, and ordering supervised access for the father with the contested default provision, citing the history of domestic violence and the father's probation.

The Applicant Mother and the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) brought motions for restraining orders against the Respondent Father under s. 46 of the Family Law Act.

The motions sought to restrain the father from coming within 500 metres of the mother's home and the children's locations, and from communicating with them.

The court reviewed the history of family violence, including the father's criminal charges and breaches of recognizance, and a period of attempted reconciliation.

The court accepted the children's expressed views and preferences, which indicated fear and distress regarding the father.

The court found that the father's repeated breaches constituted a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour, amounting to family violence, and that there were reasonable grounds to fear for the safety of the mother and children.

The motions were granted.

A custody and access dispute between separated parents regarding their child, Jarvis Lebrun.

The mother sought joint custody with primary residence and liberal access for the father.

The father sought to maintain the status quo with the child residing primarily with him.

The court appointed the Office of the Children's Lawyer to represent the child's interests.

After considering the child's clear and consistent preference to reside with the mother, the support system available to the mother, and the less-than-ideal circumstances of the father's care arrangement, the court awarded joint custody with primary residence to the mother and liberal access to the father.

The applicant mother brought a motion to strike the respondent father's pleadings in a Motion to Change proceeding.

The father had failed to comply with multiple court orders, including: cessation of child support payments (arrears of $11,900), failure to provide financial disclosure despite court orders and multiple adjournments, failure to pay a costs order, and refusal to engage in court-ordered reunification counselling.

The court found egregious and exceptional circumstances warranting the striking of the father's Response to Motion to Change, Affidavit in Support of Custody and Access, and Financial Statement.

However, recognizing the involvement of children and the potential merit of the father's claim regarding changed circumstances due to retirement, the court provided a pathway for re-engagement with specific compliance conditions to be met by December 31, 2020.

A mother brought an urgent motion during the COVID-19 pandemic seeking to suspend the father's in-person access with the children due to health and safety concerns.

The mother reported that she and the children exhibited COVID-19 symptoms, and the father's parents had recently returned from international travel.

The court found that most of the mother's requests were not urgent but determined that temporary suspension of in-person access was warranted based on the children's health circumstances and the father's failure to provide information regarding COVID-19 safety measures.

The court ordered that in-person access be suspended temporarily and replaced with virtual contact via Skype, FaceTime, and telephone, pending further determination of urgency.

A motion to change custody and access arrangements where the respondent sought to establish contact with his son after seven years of no contact.

The applicant opposed the motion and sought no access, child support, and a restraining order.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on the child's age, strong preferences against contact, and the respondent's ongoing pattern of harassing and threatening behaviour.

The court ordered no access, imputed income for child support purposes, and issued a restraining order prohibiting direct and indirect contact.

This is a costs decision in a child protection case concerning a motion by the mother for expanded access to two children.

The mother was substantially successful in obtaining a court-ordered schedule for expanded and unsupervised access, though the order included provisos allowing the Children's Aid Society to suspend access if safety concerns arose.

The mother sought costs on a full recovery basis against both the Society and the father.

The court declined to award costs against either party, applying the established principles that child protection cases are exceptions to the presumptive entitlement to costs, and that neither the Society nor parents should be penalized for acting in good faith within the statutory framework.

Two motions to change were brought regarding child support and section 7 expenses for an adult child (age 18) who had relocated from the mother's residence to the father's residence.

The father sought termination of his child support obligation and retroactive child support from the mother.

The mother sought ongoing child support, retroactive adjustment of child support based on undisclosed income increases, and retroactive section 7 expenses.

The court found the child was no longer entitled to ongoing support as she was not pursuing post-secondary education.

The court ordered retroactive child support adjustment limited to 2014-2017 based on the three-year principle, awarded partial section 7 expenses (child care and medical/orthodontic costs), and dismissed claims for private school fees and extracurricular activities.

Net arrears were fixed at $7,686.50 payable by the father to the mother.

This is a costs decision following a three-day motion to change child support.

The mother sought to reinstate child support for two children and claim section 7 expenses retroactively from January 2004.

The father opposed the motion and sought to adjust the table amount based on his actual income.

The court granted the mother's motion, imputing income to the father for intervening years, ordering retroactive table amounts and section 7 expenses, and ordering ongoing support and annual financial disclosure.

The father's conduct was found to be unreasonable, including persistent non-disclosure of income, failure to comply with prior court orders, and inadequate financial disclosure during the motion.

The court awarded full recovery costs to the mother.

The paternal grandmother brought a motion to set aside or change an order placing an 11-year-old child in the care of her parents, K.S. and A.H., who had a long-standing addiction to crystal methamphetamine and other drugs.

The motion was brought on an urgent basis after the grandmother learned that the mother had tested positive for crystal methamphetamine on October 11, 2016, but this information was not disclosed to the grandmother until November 28, 2016.

The court applied the test under subsection 64(8) of the Child and Family Services Act, which requires that a child remain in the care of the person having charge unless the court is satisfied that the child's best interests require a change.

The court found that the parents failed to meet their onus to demonstrate that a change in custody was necessary.

The court granted the motion and ordered that the child remain in the temporary care and custody of the paternal grandmother, with weekend access to the parents subject to conditions including random drug testing and restrictions on discussing court proceedings with the child.

The applicant mother brought a motion to strike the respondent father's pleadings, for payment of child support arrears and outstanding costs orders, and for security of costs.

The respondent opposed the motion.

The court found that the respondent had engaged in a pattern of non-compliance with court orders, misrepresentation, and manipulation of the court system throughout the high-conflict family law proceedings.

Despite the general caution against striking pleadings in family law cases involving children, the court determined this was an exceptional case warranting such relief because the Office of the Children's Lawyer was appointed to represent the children's interests.

The court struck the respondent's pleadings, ordered security for costs, and addressed a transportation issue regarding school drop-offs.

The Children's Aid Society sought a temporary care and custody order for two young children following their apprehension.

The mother opposed the application and sought dismissal or alternative placements with herself or her mother.

The father sought placement with himself or his mother.

The court applied the two-part test under section 51(3) of the Child and Family Services Act and found reasonable grounds to believe the children would suffer harm if returned to either parent and that they could not be adequately protected by supervision orders.

The court placed the children in the temporary care of the society with supervised access to the mother and no access to the father pending further order.

A motion by the Children's Aid Society of Algoma seeking a temporary care and custody order under section 51(2)(b) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The society sought to place three children in the care of their mother subject to society supervision and numerous terms and conditions.

The mother opposed the motion and sought an order under section 51(2)(a) with no supervision or conditions.

The father of the youngest child supported the society's position.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children were at risk of harm based on evidence of alcohol abuse, domestic discord, violence, questionable caregiver arrangements, and inadequate supervision.

The court granted the society's motion but modified several proposed conditions, finding some to be unreasonable or overly intrusive for a temporary order.

A child protection society sought an order excluding a 14-year-old child from attending all future court hearings in child protection proceedings, arguing that her presence would cause emotional harm.

The child, represented by independent counsel, opposed the motion and expressed her wish to attend all court appearances.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the child had experienced nightmares and emotional distress, the evidence did not establish that court attendance itself would cause emotional harm.

The distress appeared linked to other factors, including anxiety about a proposed treatment placement in the United States.

The court established a detailed protocol to manage the child's court attendance and minimize exposure to conflict among the adults involved in the case.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a 2006 custody order, seeking custody of both children, supervised access, and child support.

The respondent father initially opposed the motion but on the trial date abandoned his positions on undue hardship and travel costs, agreeing to pay child support for one child.

The court ordered the father to pay child support for both children from September 2011 to April 2012 in staggered amounts, and ongoing support for one child from May 2012, plus monthly payments toward arrears.

The mother was successful in her application and awarded partial indemnity costs.

The applicant sought temporary spousal support from the respondent effective January 1, 2012, along with orders requiring the respondent to maintain medical, extended health, dental, and life insurance coverage.

The respondent opposed the claim, arguing the applicant was underemployed and capable of finding work, and that he lacked the ability to pay.

The court found the applicant had a strong compensatory claim based on her five-year absence from the workforce to care for their severely disabled child.

The court determined the respondent's income at $43,600 for 2012 and awarded temporary spousal support of $800 per month, with arrears of $3,200 payable at $250 monthly.

The insurance issues were adjourned pending further evidence.