Family and Matrimonial Law - OCJ

Following a trial regarding child support, the applicant mother sought costs of $10,000.

The court found that the respondent father acted in bad faith by repeatedly failing to provide financial disclosure, misrepresenting his income, and commingling his personal finances with his corporation.

As a result of the bad faith finding, the court ordered costs on a full recovery basis pursuant to subrule 24(10) of the Family Law Rules for the child support issues.

The court fixed the costs payable by the respondent to the applicant at $9,237, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The Director of the Family Responsibility Office sought to enforce support arrears against the payor.

The payor claimed inability to pay and requested a different support order.

The court found the payor not credible, noting his chronic failure to provide full financial disclosure and that his financial difficulties were self-created.

Applying statutory presumptions and the Hennessy factors, the court determined the payor had not rebutted the presumption of ability to pay ongoing support and significant arrears.

A final default order was issued, fixing arrears, imposing a payment plan with committal terms, including an immediate 90-day committal held in abeyance pending an initial payment, and ordering ongoing support payments with committal terms for default.

The applicant (mother) sought costs of $15,000 after a successful two-day trial concerning parenting and support arrangements.

The respondent (father) requested no costs or a fixed amount of $2,000.

The court found the mother to be the more successful party, despite some divided success on issues and her failure to make a parenting offer to settle.

The father's conduct was deemed unreasonable due to his failure to provide complete and timely financial disclosure, disregard of court orders, and attempts to intimidate the mother.

The court awarded the mother $11,521 in costs, payable by the father over three years, subject to his ongoing support and costs payments.

The court declined to order costs paid directly to Legal Aid Ontario, affirming that legally aided clients stand in the same position as other litigants regarding costs.

The respondent father moved to vary a temporary child support order, seeking a reduction based on his decreased income after quitting his job.

He argued his decision to become underemployed was reasonable due to health issues and a desire for more time with the child.

The applicant mother sought to impute income, arguing the underemployment was intentional and unreasonable.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion, finding his explanation for the income reduction unreasonable, particularly given the timing shortly after a consent order for support.

The court imputed income to the respondent at his previous agreed-upon level.

This is a costs endorsement following a trial on parenting and child support issues.

The applicant mother sought $4,000 in costs, while the respondent father requested no costs.

The court found the mother to be the successful party, particularly as her offer to settle was more favourable than the trial outcome on most issues, including child support, travel, and documentation.

The father's conduct was deemed unreasonable due to non-compliance with court orders and financial disclosure.

The court awarded the mother $4,000 in costs, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable within 30 days, and declared this award enforceable as a support order by the Family Responsibility Office.

The applicant, Dilico Anishinabek Family Care, sought a protection order for a child, P.W., based on allegations of sexual abuse by the father, L.W., against his older daughter, M.W. The father and Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss Dilico's application, arguing no genuine issue for trial and agency failures in disclosure and consultation.

Dilico also moved to strike portions of an affidavit.

The court dismissed both summary judgment motions, finding that a genuine issue requiring a trial existed regarding the sexual abuse allegations.

The court also dismissed the First Nation's motion to strike, noting their default in filing an answer.

The matter was directed to proceed to a focused hearing to determine protection findings.

The mother brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support.

The father, a former personal injury lawyer, claimed he had no income after his law license was revoked for professional misconduct involving misappropriation of trust funds.

The court found the father intentionally unemployed due to his own reckless behavior and drew an adverse inference from his failure to provide financial disclosure.

The court imputed the father's income at $150,000 until March 31, 2020, and $100,000 thereafter, ordering temporary child support, section 7 expenses, and spousal support accordingly.

The applicant sought permission to issue an application requesting a Child Advocacy and Assessment Program (CAAP) assessment for the subject child, along with ancillary orders for Christmas parenting time, a prohibition against the respondent attending at the child's schools, and production of the child's personal documentation.

The respondent opposed the motion on the basis that section 138 of the Court of Justice Act prohibits duplicity of proceedings while an appeal of the prior final order was outstanding.

The court found it had no jurisdiction to grant the relief sought because there were no ongoing proceedings regarding custody or access to the child, as an appeal was pending.

The court held that assessments under section 30 of the Children's Law Reform Act or section 105 of the Courts of Justice Act cannot be ordered as standalone matters but only in the context of active custody or access proceedings.

The respondent father sought a costs order personally against the applicant mother's lawyer after the lawyer failed to attend a scheduled Assignment Court appearance.

The lawyer had faxed a letter the day before stating he was out of the country and asking duty counsel to act for him, which resulted in the case losing its trial priority and the father incurring wasted legal fees.

The court applied the test for awarding costs against a lawyer personally under subrule 24(9) of the Family Law Rules.

Finding that the lawyer's conduct caused unnecessary costs and that he mishandled the scheduling conflict without apologizing, the court ordered the lawyer to personally pay $600 in costs to the respondent.

A motion within a Children's Law Reform Act application concerning the permissible response of a domestic court to a possible misinterpretation of the Hague Convention by a foreign court.

The applicant sought orders affirming Ontario's jurisdiction and habitual residence of the child, and ordering the child's return from Georgia.

The respondent did not participate.

The court appointed amicus curiae to assist.

The Georgian courts had found wrongful retention but refused return under Article 13(b) exception.

The court declined to make the requested declarations, finding it lacked jurisdiction to issue binding declarations and that it was inappropriate to opine on issues pending before the European Court of Human Rights.

The proceedings were stayed pending the outcome in the European Court.

This is a costs endorsement following a one-day trial concerning parental access to a three-year-old child.

The mother sought costs of $21,843 from the father.

The court found the mother was the successful party, having obtained an order for supervised access substantially closer to her position than the father's position.

The father exhibited unreasonable behaviour including failure to follow court timetables, delayed disclosure of criminal records, breaches of temporary court orders, and failure to make settlement offers.

The court declined to find bad faith but awarded costs reflecting the father's unreasonable conduct and the mother's reasonable behaviour throughout the proceedings.

The mother brought an application to change a joint custody order dated November 24, 2014, seeking sole custody of the parties' four-year-old daughter, permission to relocate the child from Toronto to the London/Simcoe area, and child support.

The father opposed the application.

The court found a material change in circumstances, primarily the deterioration in the parties' ability to communicate effectively and the father's pattern of verbal and emotional abuse toward the mother.

The court granted sole custody to the mother, permitted the relocation, established an alternate weekend access schedule with extended summer and holiday time for the father, and ordered child support and special expenses contributions.

This is a costs decision following a motion to change child support obligations.

The father sought to reduce his monthly support obligation and eliminate support for a period, while the mother sought to maintain the existing order.

The court found divided success based on the positions taken at trial.

The mother's offer to settle was more favourable than the final result but did not meet the technical requirements of subrule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules because it expired before the hearing commenced.

Nevertheless, the offer was considered under subrule 18(16).

The court awarded costs to the mother in the amount of $1,800, payable in monthly instalments of $75 commencing January 1, 2018, with acceleration provisions for default on support or costs payments.

The respondent father repeatedly filed motions seeking to challenge final court decisions regarding crown wardship of two children.

After his initial status review application regarding one child was dismissed and his motion for leave to bring a status review application regarding the second child was denied, the father filed numerous repetitive motions attempting to circumvent the court's decisions and statutory time limits.

The court found this conduct constituted an abuse of process and issued orders prohibiting the father from filing further motions or applications regarding either child until the expiration of the six-month statutory period prescribed by the Child and Family Services Act.

This is a costs decision arising from a trial decision released on April 13, 2016, in which the father was ordered to pay child support of $458 per month and spousal support of $967 per month based on an assessed annual income of $50,800.

The mother sought costs of $7,288.50, while the father requested no costs be awarded.

The court found the mother was the successful party and awarded costs in her favour, considering the factors under the Family Law Rules, the mother's reasonable behaviour, the father's unreasonable litigation conduct including late financial disclosure, and a prior costs order against the father that remained unpaid.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a child support order dated September 8, 2009, which imputed his income at $45,000 and required him to pay $415 per month.

The father sought to reduce payments to $150 per month and reduce arrears to $5,000 with repayment at $50 per month.

The applicant mother agreed to a three-year credit for when the child was out of her care and proposed $250 per month arrears repayment.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services, as assignee of support arrears, opposed any reduction.

The court found the father failed to meet his onus to demonstrate changed circumstances warranting variation, noting his lack of credibility, incomplete financial disclosure, and evidence of actual income exceeding his claims.

The court granted only the three-year credit for the child's absence from the mother's care and ordered arrears repayment at $75 per month commencing October 1, 2016.

A custody and access trial involving two children where the father sought joint custody and specified access, while the mother sought sole custody with restricted access.

The court found a history of domestic violence, high conflict between the parties, and the father's difficult courtroom behaviour.

The court granted sole custody to the mother, ordered supervised access for the first six visits followed by limited unsupervised access, and addressed child support, section 7 expenses, communication protocols, and a restraining order.

The father's personality and inability to cooperate with professionals were significant factors in the decision.

This is a costs decision following a motion in a family law matter concerning the relocation of a child to Montreal.

The mother was granted permission to move with the child and obtained temporary access orders for the father.

The mother sought full recovery of costs in the amount of $14,749.16, while the father sought no costs order.

The court found the mother was the successful party on the dominant issue and awarded costs, but reduced the amount to $6,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, payable in monthly instalments of $100 commencing January 1, 2015.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a child support order dated February 17, 2004, seeking an adjustment retroactive to February 17, 2005.

The respondent father sought to eliminate special expenses under section 7 of the Child Support Guidelines and claimed undue hardship under section 10.

The court adjusted child support retroactively to July 1, 2008 (three years prior to the motion), applying the D.B.S. factors.

The father's undue hardship claim was dismissed as he failed to meet the threshold test.

The court found that tutoring expenses qualified as extraordinary special expenses and ordered the father to contribute his pro-rata share.

The court calculated arrears of $20,612 and ordered repayment at $425 per month commencing January 1, 2013.

The applicant society sought to introduce the expert opinion evidence of a psychiatrist regarding the impact of substance abuse on parenting in a child protection trial.

The respondents opposed the admission of the evidence.

The court conducted a voir dire and applied the Mohan and Abbey tests for the admissibility of expert evidence.

The court found that the proposed evidence was neither relevant nor necessary, as the expert had not met the parents or the child and could only speak in generalities.

Furthermore, the expert was not properly qualified in the specific area of addictions, and the late service of the expert report caused undue prejudice to the respondents.

The request to introduce the expert evidence was denied.