Civil Litigation - Defendant - ONCJ

The respondent brought a motion to strike the applicant's motion to change and to prohibit further motions without leave of court and security for costs.

The applicant sought dismissal of the respondent's motion and leave to proceed with her motion to change.

The court found that the applicant had a history of non-compliance with court orders requiring leave before bringing motions to change, had engaged in abuse of process through relitigation of settled issues, and lacked credibility.

The court struck the applicant's motion to change, dismissed her request for leave, and dismissed the respondent's request for security for costs, finding that existing leave requirements were sufficient safeguards.

Both parents brought motions regarding their two children.

The mother sought a restraining order and no parenting time for the father, citing his erratic and frightening behaviour and mental health concerns.

The father sought unsupervised parenting time.

The court found the father's recent behaviour to be out of control and frightening to the mother and children.

The court granted sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence to the mother, ordered no parenting time for the father, and imposed a restraining order.

The father was also restricted from bringing future motions to change the order without leave and a psychiatrist's letter.

The applicant mother sought a temporary order to relocate with the parties' three children to Alberta or, alternatively, outside the Greater Toronto Area, citing rising living costs and alleged harassment by the father.

The respondent father opposed the motion, raising concerns about the relocation plan's specifics and the mother's non-compliance with the existing parenting order.

The court dismissed the mother's motion, finding she failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances affecting the children's best interests or compelling reasons for temporary relocation.

The court emphasized the mother's non-compliance with the current parenting order, the vagueness of her relocation plan, the lack of the children's views (especially the eldest child's school choice), and the potential negative impact on the father's parenting time.

The applicant father brought a contempt motion against the respondent mother for alleged breaches of a December 2021 final order, specifically regarding facilitation of parenting time, provision of government documents (birth certificate, passport), and a list of medical professionals.

The court found the mother was in willful breach of the order concerning parenting time and document provision, but declined to make a formal finding of contempt.

The court emphasized that contempt is a remedy of last resort, and alternative enforcement measures, such as temporary consent orders already in place, had rectified the non-compliance and were in the child's best interests.

The motion for contempt was dismissed.

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.

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.

This is a costs endorsement following a temporary child and spousal support motion.

The applicant sought costs of $7,067.02 after obtaining a more favourable result than her settlement offer.

The respondent acted in bad faith by deliberately avoiding financial disclosure, unduly delaying proceedings, stopping support payments despite ability to pay, and misrepresenting his income.

The court found the respondent's offer to settle was more favourable than the motion result, triggering full recovery costs consequences.

The court also found bad faith conduct warranting full recovery costs under the Family Law Rules.

The respondent's costs were fixed at $7,067.02, payable immediately.

This is a Status Review proceeding under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act concerning an 8-year-old child.

Following a trial on the issue of paternal access, the court ordered no access and directed the appointment of an assessor to determine how and when the child should be informed of her father's identity.

The motion addresses the appointment of Dr. Rex Collins as the assessor and concerns serious disclosure failures by the Society and its counsel, who failed to disclose that the mother had told the child about her father and disclosed traumatic information about the mother's past, contrary to the court's findings that the child did not know her father's identity.

The Children's Aid Society of Peel brought a motion to have the respondent mother declared a special party under the Family Law Rules and to appoint the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee as her representative.

The Society argued that the mother's mental health issues, evidenced by concerning statements made to her daughter during supervised access visits and to Society workers, demonstrated incapacity to participate in the child protection proceedings.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the mother's statements and beliefs were unusual and potentially harmful to her case, they did not constitute compelling evidence of incapacity to understand and appreciate the risks and consequences of her decisions or to participate in the proceedings.

A costs decision arising from a motion for custody and return of a child.

The applicant (mother) sought custody of five children and the return of her 14-year-old son who had been removed from Toronto to Sudbury by the respondent (father) without consent or court order.

After multiple adjournments and temporary consent orders, the mother was successful on the motion, obtaining custody of all children including the son.

The court awarded costs to the mother on a full recovery basis, finding the father's conduct unreasonable though not rising to bad faith, and that the mother's offer to settle was as good as the final order.

The applicant sought costs arising from a temporary motion and cross-motion concerning parenting arrangements and child support.

The applicant sought $9,288.40 on a partial indemnity basis to the date of her offer to settle and on a full indemnity basis thereafter.

The respondent opposed the costs award and proposed $6,000 on a partial indemnity basis with divided success.

The court found the applicant was largely successful on parenting issues, that her offer to settle was reasonable and severable, and that the respondent's behaviour was unreasonable, particularly his pre-litigation conduct and secret recordings.

The court awarded the full amount requested.

The respondent brought a 14B motion to reopen evidence in two previously heard motions (a summary judgment motion to dismiss a child support application and a temporary support motion) that were awaiting decision.

The respondent sought to introduce fresh evidence regarding a receivership order affecting a company in which he held a 60% interest.

The applicant opposed the motion and sought dismissal, or alternatively, sought specific disclosure orders.

The court found it had jurisdiction to reopen argument but held that the respondent failed to meet the test for admission of fresh evidence, even under the relaxed standard applicable before decision release.

The respondent provided insufficient evidence demonstrating how the receivership would affect his ability to pay support.

The motion was dismissed with costs reserved.

This is a costs decision in a child protection matter under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

Following a trial held in January and March 2016, the court granted sole custody of the children to the mother and sole discretion regarding access to the father.

The Children's Aid Society and the mother sought costs against the father and his counsel.

The court declined to award costs against the father but awarded costs of $500 each against counsel for bringing and withdrawing a patently unmeritorious Charter motion that was admittedly irrelevant to the proceedings.

The parties reached a comprehensive settlement agreement following a case conference and submitted a consent order to the court.

The draft order included provisions requiring the parties to appoint a parenting coordinator with authority to resolve disputes through mediation and arbitration (secondary arbitration) under section 59.7 of the Family Law Act.

The court questioned its jurisdiction to include such mandatory arbitration provisions in a court order and sought clarification from counsel.

The court ultimately determined that while the parties may voluntarily enter into an arbitration agreement, the court lacks statutory authority to order parties to submit to arbitration, even by consent order.

The court approved the draft order with the parenting coordinator provisions deleted.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for an order that the children reside with her pending the release of the trial judgment in a custody and access matter.

The respondent father brought a motion to re-open the trial to introduce fresh evidence regarding his changed circumstances following his separation from his common law spouse and his loss of rental accommodation.

The court allowed the father's motion to re-open the trial to hear evidence of his new plan of care for the children, but limited the scope of the evidence to matters arising after the close of trial.

The court reserved its ruling on the mother's motion pending the hearing of the fresh evidence.

The court determined costs following a motion brought by the father to enforce compliance with three provisions of a consent order, particularly a provision requiring the mother to afford the father the first opportunity to care for the child when she was unable to do so.

The father was successful on the motion, and the court awarded costs to the father while considering the mother's financial circumstances as a custodial parent and the best interests of the child.

The court fixed costs at $2,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes, payable in monthly instalments.

This is a costs decision following a temporary motion heard on April 9, 2015, with the decision released on May 11, 2015.

The respondent sought expanded access to two children, including overnight access and ancillary parenting orders.

The applicant opposed the transfer and sought to change the child's counsellor.

The court granted the respondent alternate weekend access and Wednesday access, denied the applicant's request to change counsellors, and made ancillary orders regarding extra-curricular activities and telephone access.

The respondent was successful on the motion and had served an offer to settle that was not accepted.

The court awarded full costs to the respondent.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion for temporary spousal support in a family law matter.

The applicant (mother) sought temporary spousal support and was awarded $900 per month effective January 1, 2015, though she had requested $1,634 per month.

The respondent (father) opposed the motion and failed to make an offer to settle.

The court found divided success on the motion, with the mother successful in obtaining support but unsuccessful in her attempt to impute additional income to the father.

The court awarded costs to the mother in the amount of $5,000, payable at $250 per month, considering the reasonableness of the parties' behaviour, the complexity of the issues, and the father's limited financial circumstances.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion seeking to introduce evidence of the respondents' conviction and sentencing for manslaughter of one of their children in a Crown wardship proceeding.

The Society sought to adduce this evidence by way of a 14B motion without an oral hearing.

The respondents opposed, arguing that an oral hearing should be held to permit submissions on the weight to be attached to the convictions.

The court found that sentencing is a distinct process from conviction and dismissed the motion without prejudice, ordering that the matter proceed by way of an oral motion at a scheduled court date to allow the respondents an opportunity to be heard.

The Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion under Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules seeking a finding that a child was in need of protection under sections 37(2)(b)(i) and 37(2)(g) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The child had refused all contact with her father for nearly three years following a period during which the father had enforced access orders with police assistance, resulting in the child being physically forced into his vehicle on multiple occasions.

The child suffered bruising during one such incident.

The father contested the motion, arguing that parental alienation by the mother was the cause of the child's refusal and that a trial was necessary to determine the factual basis for any protection finding.

The court granted the summary judgment motion, finding that the disputed facts regarding the cause of the child's refusal were not material to the outcome, as the child's wishes and best interests would result in the same disposition regardless of whether alienation had occurred.