Civil Litigation - Defendant - ONCJ

The Respondent (father) brought a 14B Motion seeking to lift the stay of his Motion to Change child support, following a previous dismissal with leave to re-apply.

The court found that the father failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances, did not provide full and frank financial disclosure (including unfiled income tax returns and corporate financial statements), and had not complied with previous court orders regarding over $49,000 in outstanding costs.

The father's affidavit was deemed irrelevant and unfocused, failing to address the deficiencies highlighted in the prior endorsement.

The court dismissed the father's motion to lift the stay and, consequently, dismissed his underlying Motion to Change child support.

This trial concerned parenting and child support arrangements for four children.

The father sought primary residence and decision-making, and child support, while the mother sought the same, along with specific parenting orders and communication restrictions, alleging family violence.

The court found the mother to be the primary caregiver and a capable parent, while the father was deemed manipulative, selfish, and to have perpetuated family violence.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, and ordered a graduated parenting time schedule for the father with strict conditions.

Child support was ordered based on the father's current income, starting January 1, 2023.

This costs endorsement followed the dismissal of the respondent's motion to find the applicant in contempt of a final parenting order.

The applicant sought full recovery costs and an order requiring the respondent to obtain leave for any future court proceedings.

The court awarded the applicant fixed costs of $4,000, finding the respondent's contempt motion ill-advised and his behaviour unreasonable.

However, the court dismissed the request for a leave order, noting that a single unsuccessful motion does not constitute numerous motions and that such orders should be exercised cautiously in parenting matters.

The court issued a costs endorsement following a final settlement in a family law matter where both the mother (applicant) and father (respondent) sought costs.

The court found the father's claims for decision-making responsibility, parenting time, and spousal support to be unrealistic and meritless, unnecessarily extending the litigation.

Despite the settlement, the court found a compelling reason to award costs to the mother due to the father's unreasonable behaviour.

The mother was deemed the successful party for costs purposes, and the father was ordered to pay $6,000 in costs.

The Respondent brought a motion seeking an order to compel an Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) clinician to attend for questioning and produce records related to an OCL report.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Respondent failed to satisfy the three-part test under Family Law Rule 20(5) for compelling a non-party's attendance.

Additionally, the Respondent had not filed a statement disputing the OCL report within the timelines required by Family Law Rule 21(e), rendering the report uncontested evidence.

The Crown brought an application under section 714.1 of the Criminal Code seeking an order to permit the complainant to give evidence by videoconference.

The complainant, residing on the east coast with a young child, faced significant travel burdens and health concerns due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

The court considered the factors enumerated in section 714.1, including the witness's personal circumstances, the broad interpretation of "costs" (encompassing non-financial burdens like childcare and anxiety), the suitability of video technology for credibility assessment, and the accused's right to a fair and public hearing.

The court found that the public health emergency constituted an exceptional circumstance justifying remote testimony and that modern video technology adequately preserves the ability to assess witness evidence.

The application was granted, with a preference for the witness to testify from an official location rather than her home.

The Society brought a summary judgment motion in a Status Review application seeking to terminate its supervision order and impose a deemed custody and no access order for the child with the Mother and against the Father.

The Father opposed, arguing the motion was premature and impacted his access claim.

The court found deficiencies in the evidence, particularly regarding the Mother's therapeutic progress, the child's trauma counselling, and the Father's in-custody rehabilitation.

Consequently, the court declined to grant summary judgment and instead directed a mini-trial to gather specific, clarified evidence on these issues to determine the child's need for future protection and best interests.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking a finding of contempt against the applicant mother for denying him access to their four-year-old daughter in breach of temporary access orders dated October 11, 2018 and April 8, 2019.

The mother denied access based on the child's disclosures of alleged sexual abuse by the father, which triggered investigations by police and child protection services.

The court found the mother in contempt only for the period from October 7, 2020 onward, after investigations closed without substantiation and the father's bail conditions were varied to permit contact for family court purposes.

The court imposed a gradual resumption of access with financial penalties for missed visits rather than the requested change of custody.

The applicant father brought a summary judgment motion seeking sole custody of two children and termination or supervised access for the respondent mother.

The respondent mother did not file responding materials and indicated she would not participate in the court process.

The court found no genuine issue requiring trial and granted the father sole custody.

The mother had a documented history of violence, anger management issues, and involvement with child protection authorities.

She had ceased all contact with the children since February 2019, refusing to see them unless they returned to her care.

The children had been in the father's continuous care for over four years and expressed preference to remain with him, with supervised access to their mother if any contact were to occur.

This is a child protection matter involving a motion to strike evidence filed by the respondent father in a summary judgment motion brought by the Children's Aid Society.

The society sought deemed custody to the mother and restricted access to the father of two children, ages 7 and 6.

The father moved to strike affidavit material and documentary evidence that he contended would not be admissible at trial, relying on guidance from the Kawartha decision.

The court addressed procedural issues including late-filed motions, the scope of the motion to strike, and the proper application of evidentiary rules on summary judgment motions in child protection cases.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking protection findings and a disposition order for three children in foster care.

The Society sought to have all three children removed permanently from the mother's care and placed in extended care with a plan for adoption as a sibling group, with no access to either parent.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Society failed to meet its onus to demonstrate there was no genuine issue requiring trial on the issue of disposition.

The court found critical evidentiary deficiencies in the Society's case, including inadmissible hearsay evidence regarding drug testing and inadequate evidence regarding parenting capacity based on summarized access notes and group reports.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's answer and dismiss all claims therein.

The respondent failed to comply with multiple court orders requiring financial disclosure, did not attend court proceedings, did not communicate with counsel, and left the jurisdiction.

The court found this to be an egregious and exceptional case warranting the striking of the respondent's pleadings.

The respondent's answer was struck and all claims dismissed, allowing the applicant to proceed on an uncontested basis with her amended application.

A costs endorsement following a trial regarding child support obligations between the parties.

The father sought retroactive child support adjustments and termination of his support obligations, while the mother sought retroactive support.

The court found divided success on the original claims but determined the father was the more successful party overall, particularly based on his reasonable offer to settle that the mother rejected.

The court awarded costs to the father in the amount of $12,000, inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST.

The accused was charged with common assault against his domestic partner.

The complainant recanted her allegations two days after the incident, providing written and oral statements to police that she had fabricated the assault allegations.

Despite this recantation and the Crown's own screening for a non-custodial disposition on guilty plea, the Crown opposed bail and proceeded with prosecution.

The accused was acquitted at trial after the Crown called the complainant, who testified to the fabrication.

The court found the Crown's conduct constituted a marked and substantial departure from reasonable prosecution standards and awarded costs against the Crown for breach of the accused's Charter rights under section 7.

A costs decision following a jurisdictional hearing regarding custody and access of a child.

The applicant mother sought to maintain jurisdiction in Ontario after relocating with the child from Nova Scotia without the respondent father's consent.

The respondent father sought to have the matter heard in Nova Scotia.

The court determined that Nova Scotia was the correct jurisdiction.

The respondent was successful and sought costs of $9,250.00.

The court awarded costs of $3,000.00 inclusive of tax and expenses, considering the importance and complexity of the issues, the mother's financial circumstances, the lack of reasonable settlement offers, and the mother's unreasonable conduct in unilaterally relocating the child.

The father brought a motion to change the primary residence of the parties' teenage son and to obtain specified access pending trial.

The mother opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion to modify the father's access and require family counselling before access resumed.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that the long-standing status quo of the child residing primarily with the mother should be maintained pending trial.

The court held that there were no compelling reasons to disturb the status quo, particularly given the untested nature of competing expert reports on parental alienation and the proximity of trial.

The applicant sought costs of a successful motion for summary judgment dismissing the respondent's motion to change child support.

The respondent had provided misleading disclosure regarding his income source and was in breach of existing child support and cost orders.

The applicant had served a reasonable offer to settle that was more favourable to the respondent than the ultimate outcome.

The court awarded costs to the applicant on a full recovery basis, considering the respondent's unreasonable behaviour, the successful offer to settle, and the respondent's pattern of non-compliance with court orders.

The applicant sought costs following the dismissal of a motion to change brought by the respondent on July 16, 2013.

The applicant was entirely successful in opposing the motion.

The court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis, finding that the applicant acted reasonably while the respondent's motion was misguided and poorly executed.

The respondent's conduct, including making a surreptitious audio recording of court proceedings and making mean-spirited statements in cost submissions, was found to approach bad faith but not quite reach that threshold.

A child protection summary judgment motion wherein the Children's Aid Society sought to place a child in the custody of the father pursuant to section 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, with access to the mother in the discretion of the father.

The child had been a Crown ward since 2008 following a status review trial.

The father had demonstrated stability and cooperation with the Society, while the mother had failed to address serious mental health issues and remained homeless.

The court granted the motion, finding no genuine issue for trial and that the protection concerns regarding the mother that existed in 2008 continued to exist and had worsened.

A costs application arising from a motion concerning supervised access to children.

The applicant mother sought costs following a successful motion that resulted in an order for supervised access to the respondent father.

The respondent opposed the costs award, arguing the applicant's behaviour was unreasonable and that his financial circumstances should preclude or substantially reduce any award.

The court awarded costs to the successful applicant, finding the respondent's behaviour was unreasonable and inflammatory, though the award was moderated to account for the respondent's limited financial means and the need to ensure enforceability.