O'Connell J.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a final custody and access order made by Justice Cohen in 2016, seeking to expand her access to include Monday evenings for Hebrew school.

The respondent father opposed the motion, arguing there was no material change in circumstances.

The court found a material change in circumstances regarding the father's willingness to accommodate the child's Jewish identity and heritage, as he had unilaterally withdrawn consent for Hebrew school attendance after approximately two years of voluntary agreement.

The court granted a temporary order permitting the mother to continue taking the child to Hebrew school on Monday evenings pending a full investigation by the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

Both parents brought motions seeking to have the other found in contempt of parenting orders and to vary the residential schedule and custodial decision-making arrangements for their six-year-old child.

The mother sought temporary sole custody and alternating weekend access for the father.

The father sought to change the residential schedule to a 2/2/5/5 week-about arrangement and alleged the mother breached orders regarding information sharing and access to service providers.

The court dismissed both contempt motions and both requests for temporary variations of the final residential order.

However, the court granted the mother's motion for temporary custody, replacing the December 2, 2019 temporary without prejudice joint custody order with an order granting the mother temporary sole custody and decision-making authority regarding significant matters concerning the child's upbringing.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for enforcement of a parenting agreement after the respondent father retained the child on two separate occasions for extended periods due to pandemic-related self-isolation.

The parties settled all issues except one: how to interpret and apply government health protocols during COVID-19.

The father sought an order requiring both parties to follow government protocols and communicate instances of illness or exposure.

The mother opposed this, arguing the father was using the pandemic in bad faith to manipulate the parenting schedule and that separation from her posed greater risk to the child's mental health than potential COVID-19 exposure.

The court found both parents to be loving and responsible but determined that government protocols must be followed.

The court adopted an approach requiring the parties to follow public health directives from Canada, Ontario, and Toronto, with provisions for medical evidence and make-up parenting time when self-isolation occurs.

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 arising from a summary judgment motion regarding custody of a child.

The respondent father sought full recovery of legal costs ($8,258.87) or alternatively partial recovery ($6,194.15) following a motion heard on January 23, 2020.

The applicant mother, who had relocated to Saint Lucia without the child, initially opposed the motion but ultimately consented to the father's custody on the day of the hearing.

The court found the father was the successful party and entitled to costs recovery, but reduced the award to $5,000.00 (inclusive of HST and disbursements) considering the mother's limited ability to pay and other circumstances.

The court ordered the amount to be paid from funds held by the Family Responsibility Office, with any balance owing payable at $100.00 per month commencing October 1, 2020.

The respondent grandmother sought an urgent motion for the return of her grandson to her care after the applicant father refused to return the child following temporary extended access during the COVID-19 pandemic school closures.

The father claimed concerns about COVID-19 exposure in the grandmother's household but failed to bring a motion to change the custody order.

The court found the father's conduct unreasonable and a breach of the existing final custody order.

The parties reached a resolution and the child was returned to the grandmother's custody.

The court addressed the issue of costs, finding that while the father's conduct was unreasonable, it did not rise to the level of bad faith.

No costs were ordered, but the father was warned of potential cost sanctions for future non-compliance.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion during the COVID-19 pandemic regarding custody and access arrangements for two children.

The mother had ceased compliance with a Final Court Order following her criminal charge for assault and was living with an individual with a history of sexual assault convictions.

The Children's Aid Society was investigating.

The parties reached a temporary without prejudice agreement for alternating weekly custody during the school closure period, with the mother retaining primary residence upon school resumption.

The arrangement included supervised exchanges and conditions regarding contact with the individual in question.

A costs endorsement arising from contested motions regarding parenting arrangements for two children born to parties in a high-conflict family law matter.

The applicant sought immediate overnight parenting time with the younger child and progression to equal parenting, while the respondent opposed immediate overnight access and sought supervised access exchanges.

The court adjourned the motions to a later date when the child would be older.

The respondent was substantially more successful on the dominant issue and was awarded partial costs.

The accused was charged with uttering death threats contrary to s. 264.1(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that on April 15, 2017, the accused threatened his former spouse with death and bodily harm during a heated confrontation regarding medical information for their children.

The accused denied the allegations, claiming they were fabricated by the complainant to gain advantage in family law proceedings.

The trial proceeded over multiple dates with the accused self-represented and assisted by s. 486 counsel for cross-examination.

The court found the Crown proved all three essential elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt: that a threat was made, that it was to cause death or bodily harm, and that it was made knowingly.

The accused was found guilty.

Sentencing was adjourned to April 24, 2020.

This is a costs decision arising from a blended Hague Convention and child protection hearing.

The father successfully obtained an order for the return of the child to Minnesota, establishing that the child had been wrongfully removed from her habitual residence.

The mother had secretly removed the child from the father's custody in Minnesota and brought her to Canada.

The court found the child was in need of protection but ordered her return to Minnesota with conditions, including supervised access and a transition plan.

The father sought costs of $194,055.33 against both the mother and Justice for Children and Youth, claiming full recovery based on bad faith.

The court awarded partial costs to the father against the mother only, finding no bad faith but unreasonable conduct in the unlawful removal of the child.

The father brought a motion for a temporary order for summer holiday parenting time with the child.

The case involves a high-conflict custody dispute between separated parents.

The mother opposed the motion and raised numerous allegations of violence, abuse, and neglect.

The court relied on an independent Office of the Children's Lawyer custody and access investigation report, which recommended that the mother have sole custody but that the child maintain meaningful contact with the father.

The court granted a temporary summer schedule that alternated parenting time between the parties on a rotating basis from July through August, pending trial.

A motion to change a final custody and access order resulted in settlement on November 10, 2018, with the only remaining issue being costs.

The respondent father sought costs of $34,349.89 on a full recovery basis or $26,116.57 on a partial recovery basis.

The applicant mother sought no costs or nil costs.

The court declined to award costs to either party, finding that the settlement was not a clear capitulation by either party, both parties behaved unreasonably in not serving offers to settle, and the mother's financial circumstances and impact on the child's welfare were relevant considerations.