Olivia Oprea

In this family law matter, the court addressed parenting and child support issues after the respondent father's Answer/Claim was struck due to his repeated non-attendance.

The applicant mother sought retroactive child support from December 2018, ongoing child support, and contributions to section 7 expenses.

Applying the Colucci framework for retroactive support, the court found the mother had understandable reasons for her delay in seeking support and that the father had engaged in blameworthy conduct by underpaying support and failing to disclose income.

The court ordered retroactive child support and section 7 expenses, quantified current support obligations, and mandated the father to maintain health coverage for the children.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion for temporary care and custody of a child (C.O.) to be placed with the maternal aunt (M.B.), subject to society supervision, and to permit the maternal aunt to travel with the child to Ghana without the consent of the biological parents (M.O. and J.K.).

The court granted the motion, finding it had jurisdiction to make temporary travel orders as incidents of custody under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and that the trip was in the child's best interests, considering cultural heritage and family support.

The applicant sought an order enforcing Minutes of Settlement requiring the respondent to transfer title to the matrimonial home, and determining the adjustments to the purchase price.

The court found that the Minutes waived post-separation adjustments prior to the settlement date, but allowed post-Minutes adjustments for HELOC and mortgage default costs.

The court ordered the transfer of title upon payment of an agreed amount into trust, and directed a reference to an Associate Justice to determine the remaining disputed adjustments.

This costs endorsement arose from a father's (D.S.) motion for travel consent for his child, which the mother (C.P.I.) initially withheld, forcing the father to bring a motion.

The mother eventually consented at the hearing.

The father sought $1,000 in costs.

The court reviewed the principles for costs in child protection cases, noting that while a high threshold for inter-parental costs generally applies, it is lowered when the dispute primarily resembles a domestic access issue rather than a challenge to the Children's Aid Society's intervention.

The court found the mother's conduct unreasonable, bordering on bad faith, for ignoring the father's requests and forcing him to incur legal costs.

The father was awarded the full $1,000 sought, payable in installments, despite the mother's limited income, to deter unreasonable behaviour and ensure compliance with court orders.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a status review application.

The court addressed the issue of whether a party from a previous status review application automatically remains a party in a new one.

The court determined that party status does not automatically roll over and that the maternal grandfather, who was a party in a prior proceeding, no longer met the statutory definition of a "parent" under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, nor did he meet other criteria for party status or notice.

Relying on its inherent authority to control its own process, the court ordered the removal of the maternal grandfather as a party, finding it to be in the child's best interests and to prevent unnecessary delays and costs.

This is a costs endorsement following a two-day trial on child support.

The applicant (mother) was the successful party and sought $10,000 in costs.

The respondents (father and his spouse) did not make costs submissions.

The court found the father's conduct unreasonable, bordering on bad faith, due to secretive and deceptive financial affairs and failure to provide disclosure.

The spouse also acted unreasonably by not complying with a financial disclosure order.

The mother's offer to settle was deemed reasonable.

Considering the factors under Family Law Rule 24(12), including the parties' behaviour, offers to settle, and reasonableness of fees, the court awarded the mother $10,000 in costs.

The father was ordered to pay the full amount, with the spouse jointly and severally liable for $1,000 due to her specific breach.

The applicant sought to change child support provisions, requesting an increase and retroactive support based on the respondent father's imputed income and contribution to special expenses.

The respondent had a history of non-disclosure and underemployment.

The court imputed income to the respondent based on his lifestyle and assets, including regular family gifts, and ordered increased child support retroactive to April 1, 2019.

The court also ordered the respondent to contribute to the child's extraordinary expenses for tutoring and orthodontics, and to pay outstanding arrears.

This decision addresses a temporary motion and cross-motion concerning decision-making responsibility, parenting arrangements, child support, and spousal support.

The court granted the father sole decision-making authority and primary care of both children, maintaining the mother's limited parenting time with the younger child and no contact with the older child due to a documented history of abuse and the older child's expressed fear.

Income was imputed to both parents, and the mother was ordered to pay child support, while the father was ordered to pay spousal support at the lower end of the advisory guidelines, considering his significant section 7 expenses.

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.

This decision concerns the quantum of costs awarded to the applicant mother following a two-day trial for child support.

The trial determined the father's income for support and his undue hardship claim, with the mother being successful.

The court reviewed the modern purposes of costs, including indemnification, encouraging settlement, discouraging inappropriate behaviour, and ensuring justice.

The father's conduct, which included disputing paternity without follow-through, delaying disclosure, lack of forthrightness, and unreasonable positions on support and undue hardship, was heavily criticized as flagrant, reckless, and profoundly irresponsible.

Despite the father's plea for sympathy, the court found his behaviour warranted a costs award.

The court fixed costs at $9,000, the amount claimed by the mother, finding it fair, reasonable, and proportionate given the father's conduct and the mother's reasonable offer to settle.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the respondent's motion to change a final child support order.

The respondent, who had accumulated over $34,000 in arrears and failed to comply with an order to obtain an Islamic divorce, sought to terminate his child support obligations, claiming his income was lower than imputed.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no material change in circumstance as the respondent's actual income was close to the imputed amount.

Alternatively, the court struck the motion to change under Rule 1(8) due to the respondent's flagrant disregard for prior court orders and failure to pay support.

The applicant sought custody and child support for a minor child, with retroactive support dating to 2012.

The respondent sought joint custody and weekend access, and opposed the retroactive support claim.

The respondent failed to provide adequate financial disclosure despite two court orders and multiple extensions.

The court declined to strike the respondent's pleadings but drew adverse inferences from the missing disclosure, finding the respondent was intentionally underemployed.

The court imputed income based on the respondent's average earnings from his last three years of employment and ordered temporary child support of $855 monthly commencing January 1, 2017.

Trial decision determining child and spousal support obligations following the breakdown of a short marriage between a Russian national and a Mexican-Canadian permanent resident.

The court fixed the respondent's income at $50,800 per annum and ordered child support of $458 per month and indefinite spousal support of $967 per month, both retroactive to June 1, 2015.

The court found the applicant entitled to spousal support on compensatory, non-compensatory, and contractual grounds, particularly given the respondent's immigration sponsorship undertaking and subsequent withdrawal of the sponsorship application.

The respondent was in default of temporary support orders and costs awards at the time of trial.