Family and Matrimonial Law - OCJ

The paternal grandmother (applicant) sought a contact order with her 6-year-old grand-daughter.

The mother (respondent N.J.) opposed this and sought a restraining order against the paternal grandmother.

The father (respondent T.S.) was in default.

The court applied the two-part test for grandparent contact, determining that a positive relationship did not exist at the time contact was terminated, and the mother's decision to deny contact was not arbitrary.

This was based on significant safety concerns in the paternal grandmother's home and community, her problematic parenting history, and a clear power imbalance and lack of trust between the parties.

The court dismissed both the paternal grandmother's claim for contact and the mother's claim for a restraining order, finding no sufficient grounds for the latter.

The applicant mother brought a motion in the Ontario Court of Justice to lift the automatic stay of proceedings, which was triggered by the respondent father's commencement of a divorce application in the Superior Court of Justice.

The father's Superior Court application sought divorce, parenting time, equalization of net family property, and sale of family property.

The mother argued that the stay should be lifted due to the father's bad faith, prejudice to the children and herself, and waste of court resources.

The court found the father acted in bad faith by failing to file documents, breaching disclosure and child support orders, not seeking consent for property sale, and delaying the case.

The court determined that lifting the stay was in the children's best interests and served the administration of justice by avoiding duplication of efforts and allowing the OCJ to finalize issues it had extensively case-managed.

The applicant father sought to incorporate a separation agreement into a court order, enforce his parenting time, and clarify/change certain terms.

The respondent mother sought the appointment of a parent coordinator (PC).

The court found the mother had unilaterally breached the separation agreement by imposing unwarranted restrictions and supervision on the father's parenting time.

The court appointed the PC but limited its mandate strictly to the terms agreed upon in the separation agreement, rejecting the mother's attempt to expand the PC's authority.

The court granted police enforcement of the parenting time given the mother's chronic non-compliance.

This motion concerned parenting time and decision-making authority for two children.

The applicant mother sought an interim order for sole decision-making and supervised parenting time for the respondent father, citing his substance abuse.

The respondent father denied the allegations and sought a return to previous unsupervised arrangements, later proposing a transitional supervised schedule.

The court, relying on independent evidence from the Voice of the Child Report and Children's Aid Society, found the father's alcohol use to be a significant concern impacting his parenting ability.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making authority and ordered supervised daytime parenting time for the father, along with alcohol prohibition and drug/alcohol screening.

The parties were encouraged to cooperatively expand parenting time as the father demonstrates abstinence, with a right for the father to seek court review after four months if no agreement is reached.

Supplementary reasons following a status review application under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act involving three children.

The court determined placement and access for the middle child (J., age 14).

The court ordered that J. be placed in the care and custody of his maternal grandmother, subject to a seven-month supervision order, rather than remaining in foster care or being returned to his mother.

The court found the grandmother was not a source of risk of harm despite the society's objections.

The court also granted J. access to his mother and grandmother as access holder, with specific terms and conditions.

The decision addresses the balance between protection concerns and the statutory purposes of maintaining family relationships and cultural continuity.

This is a costs endorsement following a two-day trial concerning parenting and child support arrangements for a four-year-old child.

The respondent (mother) sought costs of $14,226.35, while the applicant (father) sought no costs award.

The court found that the mother was the successful party on the dominant issues (primary residence and parenting time) and was entitled to costs.

The mother had made two offers to settle, the second of which was severable and more favourable to the father on custody and support issues.

The court awarded costs of $10,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable at $275 per month commencing October 1, 2020.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking three orders: (1) to set aside the default judgment and striking of his Motion to Change; (2) to set aside the order allowing the applicant mother's Response to proceed as an uncontested trial; and (3) to set aside ex parte temporary orders restricting his access to his son and imposing a restraining order.

The father had a history of missed court appearances and procedural non-compliance spanning several years.

The court set aside the default judgment and striking order, finding that the interests of justice favored allowing the father to be heard on the mother's newly sought relief in her trial materials, despite his poor procedural conduct.

The court restored the 50-50 residence arrangement but maintained the restraining order and imposed conditions on the father's conduct, including restrictions on alcohol and drug use during the child's residence with him and prohibition on personal use of the child's electronic devices.

Trial decision determining custody, parenting time, and child support for a four-year-old child whose parents reside in different municipalities.

The mother was awarded custody and primary residence.

The father was granted generous parenting time including three out of four weekends monthly and mid-week visits.

Child support was ordered based on imputed income, with a phased approach accounting for pandemic impacts.

The court found the mother to be the more credible witness and better positioned to make major decisions for the child, while acknowledging both parents' commitment and love for the child.

A motion to change an existing access order for a mother's contact with her five-year-old child during a status review application.

The mother sought unsupervised access twice weekly, including overnight visits.

The maternal grandfather, who had custody of the child, opposed the motion and sought to restrict access to virtual contact due to COVID-19 concerns.

The court found that the mother had made significant gains since the original order, that the existing order was no longer in the child's best interests, and that unsupervised in-person access should be restored with specified terms and conditions.

The court rejected the maternal grandfather's concerns as lacking reliable evidentiary foundation and found that the pandemic alone did not justify suspending in-person contact where appropriate safety protocols were in place.

The father brought an urgent motion to enforce a final custody and access order dated December 2, 2019, after the mother unilaterally suspended his parenting time for approximately three months citing COVID-19 pandemic concerns.

The mother brought a cross-motion seeking to reduce the father's overnight parenting time to two non-consecutive overnights per week and impose various conditions including COVID-19 testing and financial disclosure.

The court found no material change in circumstances warranting modification of the final order.

The court determined the mother was using the pandemic as a pretext to adjust a parenting schedule she had opposed since settlement.

The court reinstated the father's full parenting time effective July 1, 2020, with ten days of make-up parenting time and modifications to address COVID-19 health protocols by requiring compliance with government directives.

This is a costs decision following a motion regarding temporary parenting arrangements for three children.

The court ordered on June 5, 2020 that the applicant (mother) have temporary custody of the children with defined parenting time for the respondent (father).

The mother sought costs of $3,390 while the father requested costs be limited to $1,200.

The court awarded costs of $2,500 to the mother, payable at $250 per month starting July 1, 2020, taking into account the father's limited financial circumstances and his unreasonable conduct during the proceedings.

The applicant mother sought an urgent motion to suspend the respondent father's face-to-face access with their seven-and-a-half-year-old child during the COVID-19 pandemic, seeking to replace it with video conferencing.

The child suffers from asthma and severe allergies.

The father's last access visit occurred on April 26, 2020, during which he took the child to multiple stores without proper protective equipment and without the required supervision of the paternal grandmother, contrary to the existing court order.

Following this visit, the child and household members exhibited COVID-19 symptoms and self-isolated for fourteen days.

The court found a material change in circumstances and determined that temporary suspension of face-to-face access was in the child's best interests, replacing it with weekly video access pending review at a case conference.

This is a motion to change a prior custody and support order.

The applicant father sought joint custody of the child but was unsuccessful.

The court granted the father week-to-week access including alternate weekends and mid-week access, with cooperation on holidays.

The court also varied the prior child and spousal support orders, establishing a complex retroactive support calculation based on the father's imputed income over multiple periods from June 2016 onwards, with various credits for payments made.

The father's obligation to pay section 7 expenses was adjusted, and the parties were directed to share future agreed-upon section 7 expenses proportionally based on income.

The applicant brought an urgent motion under section 14B regarding access to the subject child.

The parties subsequently resolved the immediate issue of time share and agreed that the urgent hearing scheduled for May 12, 2020 was no longer necessary.

The remaining issues were make-up time and costs.

The court ordered that these discrete and uncomplicated matters be resolved through affidavit evidence and written submissions rather than oral hearing, in accordance with updated Family Scheduling Memo guidelines and the primary objective of the Family Court Rules to promote active case management.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion seeking resumption of parenting time, police enforcement of a court order, and a finding that the mother had moved the child's residence in contravention of a court order.

The mother sought authorization to relocate the child from Etobicoke to her parents' home in Newmarket prior to trial.

The court found that while the mother initially took the child to her parents' home for March Break during the COVID-19 pandemic, she failed to return as required by a prior court order.

The court determined that the relocation was not necessitated by the health crisis and ordered the mother to return the child to the Etobicoke residence pending trial.

The relocation issue was reserved for determination at trial.

The respondent brought a motion to change the final custody and access order from 2014, seeking to establish a fixed 50/50 summer parenting schedule for the child.

The applicant opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the respondent failed to establish a material change in circumstances required to vary the 2014 consent order.

The court determined that the parties had established a negotiation-based process for determining summer access that was consistent with the 2014 order and that this process, while sometimes difficult, had not negatively affected the child.

The court also found that the respondent was barred by action estoppel from relitigating the summer access issue, which had been addressed in prior proceedings through settlement negotiations.

The paternal grandparents sought an urgent motion to temporarily suspend face-to-face access between their grandchild and his mother during the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The grandparents cited concerns about the child's asthma diagnosis, the mother's alleged failure to adhere to social distancing protocols, and the mother's other child's recent illness.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that prima facie urgency had not been established.

The court held that COVID-19 concerns alone do not automatically warrant suspension of parenting time and that the party seeking to restrict access must provide specific evidence of the other party's failure to adhere to safety protocols.

The court emphasized the importance of children maintaining contact with both parents during the pandemic and encouraged the parties to communicate and cooperate on safety measures.

A temporary care and custody motion under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act concerning four children with developmental, emotional, medical and educational needs.

The Children's Aid Society sought to maintain custody of the children after they were brought into care on December 18, 2019, due to protection concerns arising from the father's mental health crisis, controlling behaviour, and refusal to cooperate with services.

The mother, who had been subject to the father's domination, sought the return of the children.

The court found that while protection concerns existed, a supervision order placing the children with the mother was appropriate, provided she lived separately from the father and his contact with the children was supervised by the CAS.

This is a status review application in a child protection matter involving an 11-year-old child who had been in the care of the Children's Aid Society for 33 months.

The court determined that the child was in need of protection and that intervention through a court order was necessary.

The applicant sought extended society care with access at the agency's discretion.

The respondent mother sought placement of the child in her care subject to a supervision order.

The court found that the mother's mental health issues, lack of insight, combative behaviour, and failure to address protection concerns made her unsuitable to care for the child.

The court ordered extended society care with access to the mother at the agency's discretion.

This is a status review application concerning a child in the care of the Children's Aid Society of Toronto.

The child was apprehended at birth due to the mother's history of substance abuse and failure to engage in prenatal care.

The mother sought return of the child to her care, while the Society sought an order for extended Society wardship with a view to adoption by the child's foster mother.

The court found that while the mother had made significant progress in maintaining sobriety and demonstrating parenting capacity during supervised visits, she had not yet demonstrated the ability to parent the child full-time without supervision.

The court ordered extended Society wardship but granted the mother monthly unsupervised access to maintain the relationship.