Civil Litigation - Defendant - ONCJ

The Applicant (Mother) brought a motion under the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act (FOAEAA) to obtain information about the Respondent's (Father's) employer and income tax returns to establish a child support order.

The Father was in default of prior disclosure orders and failed to attend the hearing.

The court granted the Mother's application, finding that the requirements of FOAEAA sections 7, 8, and 10 were met, and that the order would not jeopardize anyone's safety.

The court authorized a court official to seek the information from the Minister of Justice, with confidentiality provisions to be determined upon receipt of the information.

The paternal grandmother (applicant) sought a contact order with her 6-year-old grand-daughter.

The mother (respondent N.J.) opposed this and sought a restraining order against the paternal grandmother.

The father (respondent T.S.) was in default.

The court applied the two-part test for grandparent contact, determining that a positive relationship did not exist at the time contact was terminated, and the mother's decision to deny contact was not arbitrary.

This was based on significant safety concerns in the paternal grandmother's home and community, her problematic parenting history, and a clear power imbalance and lack of trust between the parties.

The court dismissed both the paternal grandmother's claim for contact and the mother's claim for a restraining order, finding no sufficient grounds for the latter.

The applicant mother sought an order for security for costs and a pre-condition of leave for the respondent father to bring any future motion to change a support order.

The court reviewed the father's extensive litigation history, including repeated non-compliance with disclosure orders, late payment of costs, and withdrawal of motions on the eve of trial, which constituted an abuse of process.

Citing the Family Law Rules, the court affirmed its jurisdiction to impose such conditions to prevent further frivolous litigation.

The court ordered that the father must obtain leave, accompanied by evidence of payment of outstanding costs and an initial security for costs of $9,000, before bringing any motion to change.

If leave is granted, an additional $31,000 in security for costs would be required.

The mother was awarded costs for the motion.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion to add a maternal aunt as a party to a child protection proceeding, arguing that a Court of Appeal decision made it mandatory.

The child had been placed in the maternal aunt's temporary care.

The child's mother opposed the motion, expressing concerns about family division.

The maternal aunt tearfully withdrew her consent, stating she had not received independent legal advice and felt pressured by the Society.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Society's application of the cited case could have constitutional implications and that the process for adding parties must ensure procedural fairness, including proper notice, opportunity to respond, and independent legal advice for the proposed party.

The court also rejected the Society's argument that the temporary order should be deemed "with prejudice" due to the passage of time.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings under sections 11(b) and 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging an infringement of the right to a trial within a reasonable time.

The court applied the R. v. Jordan framework, calculating the total delay and subtracting the period attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic as a discrete exceptional circumstance.

The remaining delay fell below the 18-month presumptive ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice.

Consequently, the court found no infringement of the applicant's Charter rights and dismissed the application for a stay.

The Director of the Family Responsibility Office sought a default order against the payor for child support arrears of $23,537.84.

The payor, self-represented, requested a one-year deferral to organize his finances.

The court found the payor failed to rebut the presumption of ability to pay, was not credible, and had a poor payment history and inadequate financial disclosure.

The court ordered the payor to pay the arrears through an immediate $5,000 payment and subsequent lump sums, with committal terms for default, and to continue ongoing child support payments with committal terms.

During a Zoom preliminary inquiry for two accused charged with first-degree murder, a screen capture of one accused was taken and uploaded to social media, violating section 136 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court suspended the observer portion of the Zoom proceedings to prevent further violations, emphasizing the seriousness of such acts and the potential for witness intimidation.

To uphold the open court principle, arrangements were made for public observation in a physical courtroom with limited capacity due to COVID-19 protocols and police supervision, while the main proceedings continued virtually.

This is a costs endorsement following a one-day trial concerning parenting and child support arrangements for a four-year-old child and a restraining order request.

The respondent was the successful party, obtaining sole custody, supervised parenting time for the applicant, a restraining order, and child support.

The court awarded costs of $2,500 to the respondent, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The applicant, acting in person, did not rebut the presumption of costs in favour of the successful party and did not make submissions on costs.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's answer and obtain a final order on her claims for custody, child support (retroactive and ongoing), and access.

The respondent opposed the motion.

The court considered whether the respondent's conduct—including failure to attend court appearances and failure to comply with court orders—warranted striking his pleadings.

The court declined to strike the pleadings, finding that while the respondent had engaged in non-compliance, the threshold for this drastic remedy had not been met, particularly given that the interests of a child were at issue and both parties' participation was necessary for a fair determination.

The respondent (father) brought a motion to find the applicant (mother) in contempt of the access provisions of a January 4, 2019 order.

The court dismissed the contempt motion.

The applicant sought costs of $4,746.

The respondent argued the costs were excessive.

The court awarded costs of $2,000 to the applicant, significantly discounting the claimed amount due to the applicant's inappropriate and abusive email communications to the respondent, which escalated animosity between the parties and contributed to the motion being brought, despite the respondent's motion being ill-conceived and lacking merit.

In a motion to change a final order concerning parental access to a child, the respondent failed to comply with a court order requiring payment of $500 toward accumulated costs awards totalling $3,500.

The respondent also failed to produce the child's birth certificate and health card as ordered.

The court struck the respondent's pleadings under Family Law Rules 1(8)(c) and directed an uncontested trial to proceed, finding the respondent's non-compliance demonstrated contempt for the court process and a lack of commitment to meaningful participation in the proceedings.

This is a costs endorsement arising from a motion for temporary access to a child during November and Christmas 2017.

The applicant father sought access to the child while a trial on custody and access was ongoing before another judge.

The respondent mother opposed the motion.

The court granted the applicant substantially all of the relief sought, permitting access during the requested periods with specified conditions.

The applicant subsequently sought full recovery of costs in the amount of $6,724.06.

The court reduced the costs award to $3,000.00 inclusive of all fees, disbursements, and HST, citing the failure of either party to serve an offer to settle and other relevant factors under the Family Law Rules.

This is a costs endorsement following a trial on custody of two children.

The mother was successful in obtaining sole custody of the children, having made a settlement offer on November 3, 2017 proposing no costs if the father agreed to sole custody.

The father rejected this offer and proceeded to trial.

The court awarded costs to the successful mother, considering the factors under the Family Law Rules, the reasonableness of the parties' conduct, and the father's limited financial means.

The court fixed costs at $5,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, payable at $100 per month commencing January 1, 2018.

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

The respondent mother was the successful party, having obtained an order more favourable than her settlement offer dated May 25, 2017.

The applicant father acted in person and engaged in unreasonable conduct, including late and incomplete financial disclosure, failure to timely make support payments, and lack of credibility regarding income reporting.

The court awarded costs to the mother in the amount of $15,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, payable at $500 per month commencing September 1, 2017.

This is a youth criminal justice matter involving a defence application regarding the proper procedure for using materials obtained from a parallel civil proceeding.

The defence sought a ruling that counsel was properly in possession of materials the complainant produced in civil litigation and that the section 278 Criminal Code regime did not apply.

The Crown objected to cross-examination questions based on medical records obtained through civil discovery.

The Superior Court had previously found a breach of the deemed undertaking rule when civil counsel provided the materials to defence counsel without prior judicial oversight.

The trial judge determined that the Supreme Court decision in R. v. Shearing applied, permitting the defence to proceed with cross-examination on documents already in its possession, subject to admissibility considerations.

A stepfather sought to adopt a six-year-old child and brought a motion to dispense with notice to the biological father of an application to dispense with the biological father's consent to the adoption.

The biological father had minimal involvement with the child, had been "incommunicado" since 2013, and his whereabouts were unknown.

The court found that the applicant had not made reasonable efforts to locate the biological father or provide notice, and adjourned the motion and application for further evidence.

The court provided comprehensive guidance on what constitutes reasonable efforts to locate a party in adoption proceedings.

This is a costs decision following a motion to change a child support order.

The applicant sought to reduce his child support obligation based on his inability to return to work as anticipated.

While the applicant was largely successful on the motion to change, the court declined to award costs despite his success due to his unreasonable conduct throughout the proceedings, including failure to provide timely and complete financial disclosure, failure to comply with court orders for medical records, and causing unnecessary court appearances and delays.

The Mississaugas of the New Credit Band Council brought a motion for release of records held by Waterloo and Brant Family and Children Services relating to the current caregiver and potential alternative caregivers in a child protection proceeding.

The motion arose in the context of an upcoming trial involving competing plans for the child's placement.

The court established a two-stage test for disclosure of kin records, requiring the moving party to first demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that the records are likely relevant, followed by judicial review to weigh probative value against privacy interests and public policy considerations.

The applicant child protection agency moved to end the intervener status of the maternal grandparents in a child protection proceeding.

The grandparents had been granted limited intervener rights under section 39(3) of the Child and Family Services Act.

However, they subsequently breached the terms of a court order by including confidential information from the child protection file in a separate custody application under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The agency sought to revoke their intervener status as a sanction for this breach.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the breach was serious, the circumstances—including the counsel's inadvertence, immediate withdrawal of the application, and the limited harm caused—did not warrant removal of intervener status.

This is a costs decision following the dismissal of an appeal from a Compliance Audit Committee decision.

The appellant sought a compliance audit of campaign finances for four municipal candidates under the Municipal Elections Act.

The Committee dismissed the application, and the appellant appealed to the Ontario Court of Justice.

The appeal was dismissed.

The added parties (the four candidates) sought costs awards.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, finding that the usual practice of awarding costs to successful parties should apply.

The court rejected arguments that the appellant was a public interest litigant and found the added parties' participation in the appeal was necessary to defend their reputations against public allegations.