Olayemi Jacob Ayoola

This decision addresses parenting and child support arrangements for a 13-year-old child with special needs, focusing on primary residence, decision-making responsibility, parenting time, and retroactive child support.

The court grants the mother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, recognizing her as the consistent and responsible parent who has met the child's special needs despite inadequate financial support and the father's obstructive conduct.

The father is found to have been deliberately underemployed and financially manipulative, leading to imputation of income for child support calculations.

The court orders retroactive child support and section 7 expenses contributions, with detailed findings on the reasonableness and necessity of claimed expenses, and sets a payment plan for arrears.

This trial addressed two primary issues: whether the applicant (wife) was entitled to spousal support and whether the respondent (husband) had demonstrated a settled intention to treat the wife's two children from previous relationships as children of his family.

The court found that the husband had not demonstrated a settled intention to treat the children as his family, dismissing the wife's child support claim.

However, the court determined that the wife had established some compensatory entitlement to spousal support due to economic advantages conferred on the husband during their marriage and the immigration sponsorship process.

The quantum and duration of spousal support were referred back to the case management judge for determination.

This endorsement addresses a long-standing family law dispute concerning parenting issues and jurisdiction, marked by the respondent father's persistent non-participation and procedural abuses.

The father, residing in Saskatchewan, had previously obtained a custody order in Jordan and initiated parallel proceedings in Saskatchewan, seeking to have the children, who live in Hamilton with the applicant mother, returned to Jordan.

The Saskatchewan application was dismissed due to the father's non-appearance and lack of jurisdiction.

The Ontario court, frustrated by the father's continued failure to participate in the Hamilton proceedings, refused to schedule a trial.

Instead, the court directed the applicant mother to bring a motion to strike the father's pleadings, enabling the case to proceed on an uncontested basis and avoid further waste of judicial resources.