Civil Litigation - Defendant - ONCJ

The respondent father brought two motions: one to enforce a final parenting order and another to change it, seeking the child's return to Toronto from Owen Sound and changes to primary residence and decision-making responsibility.

The applicant mother had unilaterally relocated the child and denied the father parenting time, citing unverified allegations against the paternal grandmother.

The court found the mother in serious breach of the final order and her relocation improper due to inadequate notice and lack of court authorization.

The court ordered the child's return to Toronto, finding it in the child's best interests, and reinstated the father's parenting time, including allowing contact with the paternal grandmother under supervision.

The applicant (mother) brought a motion seeking orders to protect herself and her two children from the respondent (father).

The mother requested the removal of all social media posts, commentary, and videos about them, a prohibition on future postings, and a restraining order.

The father opposed the motion.

The court found the father engaged in cyberbullying and family violence through his online conduct, violating the privacy of the mother and children and contravening the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The court granted the mother's requests, ordering the father to remove existing posts, prohibiting future posts, and issuing a restraining order, citing the best interests of the children and the mother's safety concerns.

Costs were awarded to the mother.

Following a previous order striking the respondent father's Answer/Claim on September 4, 2020, the court provided him with an opportunity to reinstate his pleading upon meeting specified conditions: payment of $3,000 and provision of detailed financial disclosure within 45 days.

The father failed to comply with any of these conditions.

The applicant mother sought directions on how to proceed.

The court determined that the father would not be permitted to participate further in the case, finding that his continued defiance of court orders and failure to demonstrate good faith made it contrary to the administration of justice to allow his participation, particularly given that the children's primary residence with the mother was already established and not a contentious issue.

Pre-trial motions in a child protection proceeding involving two children (N. and H.) brought by the Children's Aid Society of Peel.

The Society sought to admit prior court decisions as evidence of past parenting and exclude further evidence on matters already adjudicated.

The respondent father sought to exclude prior decisions and adduce evidence regarding parenting of siblings, citing a recent Court of Appeal decision quashing the parents' criminal manslaughter conviction and ordering a new trial.

The court applied the principle of res judicata and found that prior findings regarding the care of children M., Am., and N. were not displaced by the fresh evidence regarding the cause of death.

The court admitted prior decisions as evidence of past parenting and estopped the parents from calling evidence on matters already adjudicated.

A costs decision in a family law application involving custody, access, and child support.

The application was resolved through three case conferences resulting in a final settlement.

Both parents claimed costs, but the court found the mother was the more successful party.

The father was ordered to pay the mother's costs in the amount of $10,000 all-inclusive, representing a fair and reasonable amount proportionate to the issues involved.

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.

This is a costs decision following a seven-day family law trial concerning access to children and child support.

The respondent sought costs of $26,266.74 following trial.

The court found divided success on the main issues: the respondent succeeded on section 7 expenses and her primary position on access subject to children's wishes, while the applicant succeeded on child support arrears and his primary claim for counselling to rebuild the parent-child relationship.

The court declined to award costs, finding that both parties behaved equally unreasonably on the central issue of access and that neither party had properly constituted settlement offers under the Family Law Rules.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a summary judgment motion seeking a finding that a nine-year-old child was in need of protection under sections 74(2)(b)(i) and 74(2)(h) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and seeking a disposition order placing the child in the permanent care and custody of her adult sister.

The respondent mother opposed the motion and sought dismissal.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding that there were genuine issues requiring a trial, particularly regarding the admissibility and weight of hearsay evidence and the sufficiency of evidence to establish serious emotional harm.

The court emphasized the importance of procedural safeguards in child protection cases, especially when the respondent is self-represented.

A foster parent sought expanded rights of participation in a child protection proceeding at the access stage following a crown ward order.

The foster parent requested disclosure of the Society file (excluding the Kin Assessment), the ability to attend trial, cross-examine witnesses, present evidence and make submissions, and the ability to participate in arguments regarding admissibility of evidence.

The maternal grandmother opposed the motion, arguing that expanded participation was akin to party status and would be procedurally unfair.

The court granted the motion, finding that at the post-finding stage, a less restrictive approach should apply to foster parent participation, particularly where the foster parent is the identified permanency plan and has a legal interest in the outcome.

The respondent mother sought $15,000 in costs for five case conferences in a family law matter involving custody, access, and child support.

The applicant father opposed the costs award, claiming financial hardship after already spending $62,000 in legal fees.

The court found that while the first two case conferences were wasted appearances due to the father's failure to produce ordered financial disclosure, the remaining three conferences involved ongoing custody and access negotiations with no clear winner or loser.

The court awarded partial costs of $5,000 to the mother, payable within 30 days or at $300 per month commencing May 1, 2016, noting the absence of a formal offer to settle and the father's financial constraints.

In a child protection status review hearing under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act, the respondent mother brought a mid-trial motion requesting that two society witnesses be recalled for re-cross-examination.

The court denied the motion, finding that the respondent mother's counsel had adequate opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses prior to trial and at trial, no new evidence had emerged that would warrant re-cross-examination, and allowing the recall would cause undue delay prejudicial to the children's interests.

However, the foster mother was ordered to be recalled to give evidence regarding events occurring after April 1, 2015.

A child protection society sought to reopen a child protection trial after all evidence had been heard but before final submissions were made.

The purpose was to introduce evidence that the respondent parents had been convicted of manslaughter of one of their children.

The respondents opposed the motion, arguing the evidence was not necessary, that the society lacked diligence, and that reopening would violate their Charter rights.

The court allowed the motion, finding that the evidence was relevant, necessary, and reliable, and that in child protection cases a flexible approach should be adopted when the evidence relates to the best interests of the child.

The respondent father brought a motion to vary child support and reduce arrears accumulated under a final order requiring him to pay $375 per month.

The applicant mother opposed the motion.

The court found that while the father experienced a material change in circumstances by May 2009 (unemployment following layoffs), he was intentionally underemployed from May 2009 through May 2014.

The court imputed an annual income of $41,600 to the father based on his earning capacity as a certified drywall finisher, maintaining his support obligation at $375 per month for the retroactive period.

The court reduced arrears by $5,000 and ordered the father to repay remaining arrears at $500 per month, increasing to $675 per month following the child's adoption by the mother's new partner.

A motion by a third party seeking intervenor status, amicus curiae status, or party status in a child protection proceeding.

The movant, a religious leader and founder of a public accountability organization, sought to intervene on behalf of the respondent mother.

The court dismissed the motion on multiple grounds, including lack of jurisdiction of the Ontario Court of Justice to grant amicus curiae status to public interest groups, failure to meet the criteria for intervention, and concerns about delay and prejudice to the child.

The applicant sought to vary a child support order of $2,148 per month made on consent in Ontario by obtaining a provisional order in England reducing support to £130 per month.

The respondent opposed the variation and sought release of funds held in trust from the sale of the applicant's Ontario home.

The court found that the applicant had attorned to Ontario's jurisdiction by commencing a motion to change in Ontario while proceedings were pending under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act.

The court declined to confirm the provisional English order, finding discrepancies and omissions in the applicant's financial disclosure and determining that Ontario was the more convenient forum.

The court ordered the applicant to proceed with a motion to change in Ontario and released the trust funds to the respondent.

The court determined costs following a motion to change parenting arrangements for a 13-year-old child.

The applicant mother was substantially successful in her opposition to the respondent father's motion for temporary custody and overnight access.

The father's motion was converted from an initial contempt allegation to a motion to change.

The court awarded costs to the successful applicant mother in the amount of $11,500, considering the factors under the Family Law Rules including the parties' litigation behaviour, the complexity of the issues, and the reasonableness of legal fees.

The applicant sought costs for a successful motion regarding school placement for a child in a shared parenting arrangement.

The applicant was awarded costs of $3,000.00 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The court determined that the applicant was the successful party on the only issue before it—the choice of school—and that costs should be awarded at a level approaching substantial recovery rather than full recovery, as the applicant's offer to settle included terms the court declined to rule on and was therefore not as favourable as the court's ruling.

The applicant was successful in her child support and section 7 expenses claim.

This costs decision addresses the quantum of costs to be awarded to the successful party.

The court found that the applicant acted reasonably and made exhaustive efforts to settle, while the respondent behaved unreasonably and inflexibly.

The court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis, fixing the fees component at $9,000.00 inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, plus an outstanding costs order of $1,000.00 from October 4, 2011.

The Children's Aid Society and Ontario Children's Lawyer brought a motion to dispense with service on the respondent father in a child protection application.

The father was subject to a non-association order and had been convicted of assaulting the subject child.

The court rejected the motion, finding no jurisdiction under the Child and Family Services Act, Family Law Rules, or common law to dispense with service on a parent.

The court held that fundamental principles of natural justice and section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms require that a parent receive notice and an opportunity to be heard in child protection proceedings.

The applicant mother sought costs following successful motions regarding custody, access, and child support.

The respondent father opposed the costs award and argued for a substantially reduced amount.

The court awarded costs to the successful applicant but declined to award costs on a full indemnity basis, citing the failure of both parties to serve offers to settle.

The court fixed costs at $10,000.00 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable at $250 per month commencing May 1, 2012.