Family and Matrimonial Law - OCJ

The respondent mother brought a motion for temporary spousal support from the applicant father after a 15-year cohabitation.

The mother claimed disability since 2016 and sought compensatory and non-compensatory support.

The father argued the mother was deliberately unemployed and sought to impute income to her, requesting the issue be sent to trial.

The court found the mother had established a prima facie entitlement to temporary spousal support on both compensatory and non-compensatory grounds, rejecting the father's request to impute income or defer the decision to trial.

The court ordered the father to pay $2,000 per month in temporary spousal support, starting April 1, 2024, aiming to equalize net disposable incomes given the shared parenting arrangement.

This trial addressed parenting time arrangements and child support obligations for the parties' child, Kyler, including a retroactive child support claim.

The applicant sought primary care and full guideline child support with retroactivity to May 2021, while the respondent sought a shared parenting schedule and set-off child support.

The court found that despite a mediation memorandum, a shared parenting arrangement was not consistently in place, and the child primarily resided with the applicant.

The court dismissed the respondent's request for shared parenting, granting the applicant primary care with liberal and generous parenting time for the respondent.

Retroactive child support was awarded to the applicant, but only from September 1, 2023, as effective notice for an earlier period was not established.

The mother brought a motion to change child support and parenting time, seeking to impute a higher income to the father and claim retroactive support and section 7 expenses.

The father brought a cross-motion to change parenting time and sought to pay child support based on a lower income.

The court found a material change in circumstances for both parenting time and child support.

The father's income was imputed significantly higher than he claimed, and retroactive support was ordered from January 1, 2022, due to his blameworthy conduct in failing to disclose income.

A structured, gradually increasing parenting time schedule was ordered for the father, removing the mother's previous discretion.

The respondent sought to set aside the registration of a 2001 California child support order in Ontario, arguing lack of notice, no reasonable opportunity to be heard, and public policy concerns including income misattribution, disputed paternity, and delayed enforcement.

The applicant opposed, asserting proper notice and the respondent's deliberate avoidance of obligations.

The court found the respondent had proper notice and opportunity to be heard, and his credibility was significantly undermined by inconsistencies and bad faith conduct.

The court rejected the public policy arguments, emphasizing that this defense should not interfere with foreign courts' findings of fact when proper process was followed.

The motion to set aside was dismissed, and the registration of the California order was confirmed.

This decision is a costs endorsement following a prior ruling on temporary parenting, support, and communication orders.

The respondent (mother) was the successful party in the underlying motions and sought $6,500 in costs.

The applicant (father) did not submit costs arguments.

The court applied the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, considering the father's unreasonable conduct, including failure to meet filing timelines, lack of proper financial disclosure, non-compliance with temporary orders, and advancing meritless positions.

Despite the father's limited imputed income, the court ordered him to pay the requested $6,500 in costs, allowing for monthly installments.

The applicant sought full recovery costs ($20,621.08) arising from successful parenting motions.

The respondent, who was largely unsuccessful on the motions, requested costs be fixed at $3,500.

The court found the respondent's conduct, including unilaterally changing the parenting schedule after the mother's death and involving police, amounted to bad faith or at least unreasonable behaviour.

While finding bad faith, the court reduced the applicant's claimed costs to $10,000, finding the original claim excessive but the hourly rate reasonable.

The respondent was ordered to pay $10,000.

This case concerned a dispute over the primary residence of an 8-year-old child, Paislee, following the parents' separation.

The applicant father sought to maintain Paislee's primary residence in Mitchell, Ontario, while the respondent mother sought to relocate Paislee to Sarnia, Ontario, where the mother resided with her new partner and their children.

The court applied the best interests of the child test under sections 39.4(3) and 24(3) of the Children's Law Reform Act, giving significant weight to Paislee's expressed views and preferences, her bond with her half and step-siblings, and concerns regarding her relationship with the father's new partner.

The court ultimately granted the mother's request for primary residence in Sarnia, effective September 1, 2024, with joint decision-making responsibility and a revised parenting schedule.

The Respondent Father brought a motion to change a temporary order, seeking to expand his parenting time from supervised to unsupervised.

The Applicant Mother consented to expanded time but opposed unsupervised access until specific conditions related to the Father's sobriety and transparency were met, citing his history of domestic violence and alcohol misuse.

The court found a material change in circumstances, but, considering the Father's past conduct and lack of full transparency regarding recent sobriety lapses, ordered a cautious, gradual expansion of supervised parenting time, including a phase for community access, but denied immediate unsupervised access.

The Father was ordered to continue various sobriety programs and provide ongoing disclosure.

The Respondent (father) brought a 14B Motion seeking to lift the stay of his Motion to Change child support, following a previous dismissal with leave to re-apply.

The court found that the father failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances, did not provide full and frank financial disclosure (including unfiled income tax returns and corporate financial statements), and had not complied with previous court orders regarding over $49,000 in outstanding costs.

The father's affidavit was deemed irrelevant and unfocused, failing to address the deficiencies highlighted in the prior endorsement.

The court dismissed the father's motion to lift the stay and, consequently, dismissed his underlying Motion to Change child support.

The applicant father sought the return of the parties' child to Portugal under the Hague Convention, alleging wrongful removal by the respondent mother.

The child was born in Portugal in 2020 and removed to Canada by the mother in June 2022.

The court found that while the child's habitual residence was Portugal, the father did not have custody rights under Portuguese law that would render the removal wrongful.

Even if the removal were wrongful, the court found two exceptions to mandatory return applied: the father acquiesced to the child remaining in Canada, and there was a grave risk of harm to the child if returned to Portugal due to the father's pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour against the mother.

The father's application was dismissed.

This trial concerned child support and section 7 expenses for the parties' two children.

The applicant mother sought to impute the respondent father's income at $55,000 and requested $300 monthly for section 7 expenses.

The father proposed ongoing support based on an annual income of $32,240 and a $100 monthly contribution to section 7 expenses.

The court imputed the father's income at $47,720 for 2022, $39,112 for 2023, and $42,000 ongoing for 2024, finding he unreasonably deducted personal expenses from his business income and that his plan to return to school was not a reasonable justification for under-employment.

The court ordered child support to commence on May 1, 2022, and fixed arrears.

The father was also ordered to contribute to child care expenses as eligible section 7 expenses, but the mother's requested extracurricular activities were not deemed extraordinary.

This trial concerned parenting and child support for the parties' daughter, Melanie.

The father sought sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, alleging the mother was a flight risk and had poor judgment regarding Melanie's documents and travel.

The mother sought shared or sole decision-making and primary residence.

The court found the mother was not a flight risk and that the father had exaggerated or fabricated some claims, and that the paternal grandmother's significant involvement and negative views of the mother were detrimental to Melanie's best interests.

The court granted joint decision-making responsibility, with the mother having final say in case of disagreement, and ordered Melanie's primary residence to be with the mother.

Specific orders were made regarding document custody and travel restrictions.

Child support was also determined, with the father ordered to pay retroactive and prospective child support to the mother, and the mother to pay prospective child support to the father for a period.

The applicant mother sought to lift a stay on her Motion to Change parenting and support terms, and to amend her motion to seek primary residence of the child.

The respondent father opposed lifting the stay and sought security for costs, or alternatively, pre-conditions including payment of outstanding costs and child support, and financial disclosure.

The court dismissed the father's request for security for costs, finding the mother's claim not to be a nuisance or waste of time, especially given the child's best interests.

However, the court imposed strict pre-conditions for lifting the stay, requiring the mother to provide comprehensive financial disclosure and pay outstanding costs and child support arrears within 120 days, citing her history of non-compliance and lack of financial transparency.

The court emphasized balancing the child's right to be heard with fairness to the father.

The trial concerned decision-making responsibilities, parenting time, and child support for the parties' child.

The mother had unilaterally removed the child from the jurisdiction to Florida, violating a prior court order.

The court found the father to be a credible witness capable of providing stability, while the mother was found not credible, impulsive, and lacking judgment, particularly regarding the child's education and relationship with the father.

The court granted the father primary residence and sole decision-making authority, with the mother having alternate weekend parenting time, contingent on providing government documents.

The claim for spousal support was dismissed, and child support issues were deferred for further submissions.

The applicant father sought full recovery of costs related to a contempt motion where the respondent mother was found in contempt of prior court orders regarding parenting time and information sharing.

The mother's non-compliance led to the father having no contact with the child and unilateral decisions by the mother.

The court found the mother acted in bad faith due to her intentional breaches and efforts to alienate the child.

Despite the mother's financial circumstances, the court ordered her to pay $55,000 in costs to the father, emphasizing the seriousness of contempt and the need to sanction inappropriate litigation behaviour.

This protection application concerned three children whose mother was murdered.

The Children's Aid Society sought a finding that the children were in need of protection and final custody to their maternal aunt, with whom they had resided since their mother's death.

The respondent father (MH) of two of the children sought custody of his daughters.

The court found the children in need of protection due to physical harm (dental neglect), risk of physical harm (neglect of immunizations, exposure to domestic violence), risk of emotional harm (domestic violence, housing instability, risk of removal from long-term caregiver), and inadequate provision for care after the mother's death.

The court dismissed the father's bid for custody, finding his plan not viable and his credibility lacking, and granted final custody of all three children to the maternal aunt, emphasizing the children's best interests, continuity of care, and the aunt's demonstrated ability to meet their needs.

The Ontario Court of Justice rendered a costs endorsement following motions for temporary parenting and support orders.

The respondent mother, who was largely successful on the underlying motions, sought $13,000 in costs.

The applicant father opposed the amount and requested installment payments.

The court, applying principles of reasonableness and proportionality, found the mother to be the successful party.

It considered the father's unreasonable conduct, including unjustifiably overholding children, attempting to exclude the mother from their lives, failing to pay child support, and breaching a court order.

Despite both parties failing to make offers to settle, the court awarded the mother $10,000 in costs, payable in monthly installments of $300.

The applicant father brought a motion for contempt against the respondent mother for failing to provide access to their child as per a 2012 consent order.

The court found the mother in contempt, noting her deliberate non-compliance despite warnings from two judges.

However, the court imposed a nominal fine of one cent, emphasizing that contempt motions are a last resort and not for varying final orders.

The issue of compensatory access, sought by the father as a remedy, was remitted to the trial judge in the ongoing Motion to Change proceeding, as the contempt motion was procedurally flawed and brought in the wrong proceeding.

The applicant sought sole custody of the child, permission to relocate from Mississauga to Kitchener, child support, retroactive child support, and travel provisions.

The respondent sought sole or joint custody with the child remaining in Mississauga and child support.

The court found that the applicant had a closer emotional bond with the child and was better positioned to meet the child's special needs, including speech and language development.

The court awarded sole custody to the applicant and permitted relocation to Kitchener.

The respondent was ordered to pay child support of $643 monthly from November 2015, with arrears of $6,430 to be paid at $200 monthly.

Access was to be arranged by mutual agreement between the parties, with the respondent to drive to Kitchener to collect the child and the applicant to arrange return transportation.

The applicant mother sought permission to relocate her son from Toronto to Surrey, British Columbia, and to vary the access order accordingly.

The respondent father opposed the relocation.

The court found that the mother had established a material change in circumstances (a 25% reduction in her income) that affected her ability to meet the child's needs.

Applying the two-part test from Gordon v. Goertz, the court conducted a fresh inquiry into the child's best interests and found that the proposed move would not materially alter the father's ability to exercise access.

The court granted the mother's application to relocate, finding that her views as the custodial parent were entitled to great respect and that the move was made in good faith for legitimate financial and personal reasons.