Family and Matrimonial Law - ONCJ

The applicant father sought costs after a successful motion for temporary parenting time.

The respondent mother also sought costs.

The court found that neither party's offers to settle met the technical requirements for costs consequences under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

While there was divided success on the underlying motion, the father was deemed the more successful party overall.

The court considered the parties' conduct, particularly the mother's unreasonable allegations and interference with parenting time, and awarded the father $6,000 in costs, payable monthly, dismissing the mother's costs claim.

This is a costs endorsement following a two-day trial on the respondent father's motion to change a child support order.

The applicant mother sought $12,000 in costs, while the father requested no costs.

The court found the mother to be the overall more successful party, noting the father's unreasonable conduct in providing late and incomplete financial disclosure and unreliable evidence.

Despite some divided success on child support termination dates, the father's main request for retroactive reduction was dismissed, and the mother was significantly more successful on the issue of claimed support credits.

The court awarded the mother $7,500 in costs, payable in installments, and ordered them to be enforceable as an incident of support by the Family Responsibility Office.

This endorsement addresses costs following a child protection trial where the primary dispute was between paternal (A.H. and B.H.) and maternal (D.T. and A.T.) grandparents for custody of a child, M. The paternal grandparents, who were ultimately granted deemed custody, sought costs against the maternal grandparents.

The court found that while the maternal grandparents had a legitimate case, their conduct, including obstructing access and breaching court orders, was unreasonable and unduly prolonged the proceedings.

Applying principles that allow for costs against parents/parties in child protection cases for unreasonable conduct, the court awarded $3,000 in costs to the paternal grandparents to sanction the maternal grandparents' behaviour and partially indemnify the successful litigants.

The Society sought extended care for H.M., who was found in need of protection.

The mother, B.T., sought H.M.'s return.

The court found that while H.M. continued to need protection, the risk was low and B.T.'s parenting was adequate.

The court critically examined the Society's restrictive access policies and communication, which contributed to the strained relationship.

The final order placed H.M. in the mother's care under Society supervision for six months, with specific terms for communication and support, and no access for the father.

The applicant mother sought retroactive child support and contributions to special expenses from the respondent father for their 11-year-old son, arguing for income imputation due to the father's under-reporting and non-disclosure.

The father opposed, claiming a later separation date and lower income.

The court found the father lacked credibility, engaged in blameworthy conduct by misrepresenting income and failing to provide financial disclosure, and determined the parties separated in 2013.

The court imputed income to the father for various years and ordered retroactive child support from January 1, 2017, along with a contribution to special expenses.

A payment schedule for the accumulated arrears was also set.

The applicant father brought a motion to find the respondent mother in contempt of court for wilfully disobeying a final order regarding parenting time and an interim court order.

The mother repeatedly failed to return the child, citing misinterpretations of COVID-19 health guidelines, despite negative tests and police intervention.

The court found the mother in contempt, satisfying the test beyond a reasonable doubt, noting her deliberate actions and disregard for court orders.

Despite the finding, no jail time or fines were imposed due to the mother's medical conditions and existing child protection prohibitions on her parenting time.

The court amended the parenting order, granting primary residence to the father and restricting the mother's contact and future litigation without leave.

The father sought to change the children's primary residence from Thunder Bay to London, Ontario, and sought sole custody, alleging the mother had mental health issues and failed to address the children's special needs.

The mother opposed the relocation and sought to retain primary care and decision-making.

The court found the mother was the primary parent and the children's status quo was with her.

Applying the Children's Law Reform Act and common law principles, the court determined that the father failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances or that the relocation was in the children's best interests, noting his history of undermining the mother and his own move from Thunder Bay.

The court dismissed the father's request for relocation and granted the mother sole decision-making authority and primary residence, with specified parenting time for the father and an order for child support arrears and ongoing support.

The trial concerned decision-making responsibilities, parenting time, and child support for the parties' child.

The mother had unilaterally removed the child from the jurisdiction to Florida, violating a prior court order.

The court found the father to be a credible witness capable of providing stability, while the mother was found not credible, impulsive, and lacking judgment, particularly regarding the child's education and relationship with the father.

The court granted the father primary residence and sole decision-making authority, with the mother having alternate weekend parenting time, contingent on providing government documents.

The claim for spousal support was dismissed, and child support issues were deferred for further submissions.

The Children's Aid Society of Peel brought a summary judgment motion seeking protection findings for the child A.J. and an order for placement with the maternal aunt under Society supervision.

The child's mother and maternal aunt consented to the motion, but the father opposed the placement, advocating for the child to be placed in his care.

The court found the child to be in need of protection, a finding consented to by all parties.

Applying Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules and considering the child's best interests under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, the court dismissed the father's plan, citing concerns about his undisclosed criminal history, inconsistent living arrangements, and inability to cooperate with the maternal aunt.

The court granted the Society's motion, ordering the child's placement with the maternal aunt, emphasizing the stability and positive care provided by the aunt since the child's birth as the least disruptive alternative.

The father applied to revoke the legal change of his daughter's surname from 'Russell' to 'Thompson', alleging the mother obtained the change fraudulently by failing to provide proper notice under the Change of Name Act.

The court found the mother intentionally sent blank papers instead of the required notice and affidavit of service, thereby obtaining the name change by fraud.

The court assessed the credibility of both parties based on their past litigation conduct and communication, finding the mother's actions to be hostile and vindictive, and the father's conduct reasonable.

The application was granted, and the name change was revoked.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change child support for the parties' 11-year-old son, seeking to impute income to the father in excess of $100,000 and requesting retroactive support dating back to 2013.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion for summary judgment.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that the mother's allegations of hidden income and lifestyle-based imputing were unfounded.

The father's income was determined based on his Line 150 tax returns with a modest addition from a personal injury settlement received in 2017.

The court dismissed the mother's disclosure motion and found that no additional disclosure was required.

The court also imposed restrictions on the mother's future access to the court due to her abusive litigation conduct and disproportionate claims.

A motion review and new motion concerning child access during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The applicant sought to continue virtual video access only, citing the respondent's criminal charges and the enhanced health risks to one child who has Alpha-1 Antitrypsin Deficiency.

The respondent opposed the suspension of face-to-face access and sought modification of other restrictions.

The court found that the child's serious genetic condition placed her at enhanced risk from COVID-19 exposure and that the respondent's recent criminal charges and ongoing drug dependency issues, combined with his dismissal of the child's medical vulnerability, undermined his ability to adequately protect the child.

The court suspended face-to-face access temporarily in favour of virtual contact pending further order or written agreement of the parties.

An uncontested trial concerning child support obligations for a dependent child.

The applicant mother sought guideline child support retroactive to May 1, 2015, contribution to section 7 expenses, and costs.

The respondent father did not participate in the proceedings despite proper notice and multiple court attendances.

The court found the respondent had an obligation to pay child support, imputed income for years where disclosure was not provided, awarded prospective support from the date of notice, and made a retroactive award for a two-year period.

The court also determined which claimed expenses qualified as section 7 expenses and apportioned them based on the parties' respective incomes.

Costs were awarded to the successful applicant.

In a child protection proceeding under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, the respondent mother sought an adjournment of a summary judgment motion scheduled for April 18, 2019.

The mother's previous counsel had withdrawn on February 27, 2019, leaving her unrepresented.

She retained new counsel on March 27, 2019, but counsel required additional time to prepare, citing incomplete disclosure from the Children's Aid Society and the complexity of the issues involved.

The court granted the adjournment despite opposition from the society and the child's counsel, balancing the mother's right to procedural fairness and adequate legal representation against the child's interest in expeditious resolution.

The court emphasized that while delay is generally unacceptable in child protection proceedings, fairness to both parent and child sometimes necessitates limited delays to ensure proper consideration of the case on its merits.

The defendant was charged with depriving her former husband of possession of their two children in contravention of a custody order made by the Superior Court of Justice.

She pled guilty to one count of parental abduction under section 282(1) of the Criminal Code.

The incident occurred on June 10, 2016, when the defendant removed the children from school to prevent the complainant from exercising his lawful access rights.

The defendant had previously breached the custody order on multiple occasions.

At sentencing, the court rejected the defence submission for a conditional discharge and imposed a suspended sentence with 18 months probation, including compliance with family court orders and restitution of $1,000.

This decision addresses a motion by Children's Aid Society of Algoma (Algoma CAS) seeking to substitute Nogdawindamin Family and Community Services (Nogdawindamin CAS) as the applicant in child protection proceedings.

The motion arises from the recent designation of Nogdawindamin, a native agency, as a children's aid society effective April 1, 2017.

The court examined the Minister's designation of Nogdawindamin CAS, which contains both geographical and personal jurisdictional components, as well as conditions restricting certain functions pending consultation and coordination with other First Nations communities.

The court determined that the children and mother in this case, as registered or eligible members of Batchewana First Nation, fall within Nogdawindamin CAS's jurisdiction under paragraph 1 of its designation.

The motion was granted, and the proceeding was transferred to Nogdawindamin CAS with ancillary orders for change of solicitors and amendment of the title of the proceeding.

The applicant mother sought to implement recommendations from an Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) report, including sole custody and supervised access for the respondent father.

The respondent father sought to expand his unsupervised access and remove conditions from an existing temporary order.

The court found exceptional circumstances existed warranting implementation of supervised access and restricted telephone contact recommendations, but denied the mother's request for sole custody and other non-access relief.

The father's motion for expanded unsupervised access was also denied.

This is a temporary care hearing under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act concerning three children.

The central issue determined by the court is who had charge of the children immediately prior to the Society's intervention.

The court found that the two older children were in the charge of their father, M.S., and the youngest child was in the charge of his father, S.D., immediately prior to intervention.

The mother, A.J., had abandoned the children in August 2015 to pursue substance abuse and was subsequently incarcerated intermittently.

The court applied the legal test for temporary care orders, focusing on the nature of the active caring relationship rather than legal custody.

A ruling on a jurisdictional question in a family law matter concerning a motion to change a final consent order regarding custody and access of a child.

The applicant sought to determine whether the Ontario Court of Justice or the Superior Court of Justice had jurisdiction to hear the motion to change.

The respondent had brought multiple motions in the Superior Court on grounds of urgency, despite the original application having been commenced in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The court held that the Ontario Court of Justice retained exclusive jurisdiction as the court of first instance, and that the Superior Court orders were made per incuriam and had no force and effect.

Following a four-day trial in which the applicant was granted sole custody of a child, the court determined costs payable by the unsuccessful respondent.

The applicant sought full recovery costs of $29,912.50, while the respondent argued no costs should be awarded, claiming the applicant behaved unreasonably and the costs were excessive and beyond her ability to pay.

The court rejected the respondent's arguments, finding neither party acted in bad faith and both sincerely believed custody was in the child's best interests.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $10,000.00, considering the importance of the custody issue, the complexity of the case, and the respondent's modest financial circumstances.