Family and Matrimonial Law - ONCJ

The respondent father brought a motion seeking to transfer the 8-year-old child from her current English school to a French Immersion program for Grade 4.

The applicant mother opposed the motion, arguing the child had learning challenges and should remain in the Core French program.

The court excluded the mother's expert evidence due to bias and lack of independence.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the court found that the child's academic struggles and the parents' poor communication made a transfer to French Immersion contrary to her best interests.

The motion for school transfer was dismissed, but temporary orders were made to ensure the child's continued exposure to French through summer camps and extra-curricular activities.

The applicant society brought a motion in a child protection proceeding seeking a declaration that the respondent mother is a special party and requesting the appointment of the Public Guardian and Trustee as her legal representative.

The mother, who has indigenous heritage, had been diagnosed with schizophrenia, was not taking her medication, and had missed recent court appearances.

The court found compelling evidence that the mother was mentally incapable of understanding or appreciating the risks and consequences of her decisions regarding the litigation.

As no family member was willing to act as her representative, the court granted the motion and appointed the Public Guardian and Trustee.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a final order to terminate child support for two adult children attending post-secondary education.

The mother opposed and sought a retroactive increase based on the father's updated income.

The court suspended support for the older child due to poor academic performance, with conditions for reinstatement if he proved academic success.

For the younger child, the court adjusted the father's contribution to reflect his actual living expenses and grants, ordering a proportional contribution to rent and food.

The court also ordered retroactive adjustments to child support based on the father's actual income for prior years.

This is a costs decision following a three-day motion to change child support.

The mother sought to reinstate child support for two children and claim section 7 expenses retroactively from January 2004.

The father opposed the motion and sought to adjust the table amount based on his actual income.

The court granted the mother's motion, imputing income to the father for intervening years, ordering retroactive table amounts and section 7 expenses, and ordering ongoing support and annual financial disclosure.

The father's conduct was found to be unreasonable, including persistent non-disclosure of income, failure to comply with prior court orders, and inadequate financial disclosure during the motion.

The court awarded full recovery costs to the mother.

Motion to change parenting arrangements for a seven-year-old child.

The mother sought to reduce the father's parenting time and maintain sole custody with a modified schedule.

The father sought sole custody with the mother having alternate weekend access.

The court found a material change in circumstances since the original 2012 order, including escalated parental conflict, involvement of child protection services, and police intervention.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother with an expanded parenting schedule for the father, rejecting his request for sole custody due to concerns about his judgment, controlling behaviour, and poor insight into the child's emotional needs.

A costs decision following dismissal of a contempt motion brought by the applicant father against the respondent mother.

The father sought full indemnity costs of $32,309.62, alleging the mother acted in bad faith by making repeated unfounded reports to child protection and police agencies.

The mother sought costs on a full indemnity basis from the date of her offer to settle.

The court found the mother acted unreasonably but not in bad faith, and declined to award costs to either party, balancing the mother's unreasonable conduct against the father's failure to serve an offer to settle or counter-offer.

The respondent father brought a motion to change child and spousal support provisions in a separation agreement dated December 22, 1999.

The father sought to reduce his child support obligations based on declining commission income and to fix arrears at zero.

The applicant mother opposed the motion and sought to maintain the father's imputed income at $80,000 per annum, arguing the father was intentionally underemployed.

The court found that while the father's gross commission income had declined, he had been significantly underpaying child support by structuring his financial affairs to declare substantially less income than available.

The court imputed income at $80,000 per annum, ordered ongoing child support of $1,823 per month, and fixed arrears at $10,000.

A custody trial concerning a child born in February 2010 to parents involved in a high-conflict dispute.

The applicant, the biological father, sought sole custody against the respondent mother who was married to another man at the time of the child's birth.

The case involved complex factual issues including disputed paternity, false allegations of sexual assault, and parental alienation.

The court awarded sole custody to the biological father, finding that while both parents were capable, the respondent's persistent efforts to marginalize the father's role and her lack of willingness to foster the parent-child relationship were determinative factors.

A stepfather brought a motion to dispense with the biological father's consent to the adoption of a child under section 138 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The biological father, who had not had contact with the child for over five years and had not provided financial support, did not appear or respond to the motion.

The court found that it was in the child's best interests to dispense with the biological father's consent, considering the child's stable family life with the stepfather, the absence of any relationship with the biological father, and the permanence and security that adoption would provide.

The respondent sought to vary a temporary child and spousal support order on the basis of a material change in circumstances.

The respondent had been ordered to pay support based on imputed income of $86,000 annually as a car salesman.

He subsequently obtained new employment at a lower salary of $60,000 annually, claiming he chose the position to spend more time with the children.

The court dismissed the motion to vary, finding that the respondent had not established changed circumstances sufficient to overcome the res judicata effect of the imputed income determination.

The court held that a parent's obligation to support children at the level they are capable of earning takes precedence over personal choices regarding work-life balance.

This is a costs decision following a trial in a family law matter involving child and spousal support.

The applicant sought to terminate spousal support and set child support at a lower income level, while the respondent sought continuation of support at a higher imputed income.

The respondent was substantially successful at trial.

The court awarded costs to the respondent in the amount of $5,000.00, inclusive of all taxes and disbursements, payable within 90 days.

The court found that while the respondent's offer to settle was more favourable than the trial outcome, it did not meet the formal requirements of Rule 18 of the Family Law Rules as it was contained in a settlement conference brief rather than served separately.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion heard on access to children in a family law matter.

The applicant father sought full recovery costs of $7,500 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The respondent mother opposed the costs claim, arguing the amounts were excessive and that she and the children would suffer hardship.

The court awarded the full costs claimed to the successful applicant father, finding that the mother had taken unreasonable positions throughout the proceedings and had been the author of her own misfortune by failing to resolve matters in the best interests of the children.

A custody and access trial concerning a child born in August 2010 to unmarried parents who separated during the mother's pregnancy.

The father sought joint custody with an equal week-about residential schedule.

The mother sought sole custody with supervised or restricted access.

The court granted joint custody with the child's primary residence with the mother, rejecting the clinical investigator's recommendation for equal time-sharing.

The court found the mother's concerns about the father's parenting were unsubstantiated and influenced by her relationship with her former husband, who had provided financial and emotional support.

The court implemented a graduated access schedule beginning with Saturday day visits, progressing to overnight access, and including mid-week visits, while imposing detailed provisions to minimize the need for joint decision-making given the parties' poor communication.

A motion by the Children's Aid Society of the County of Renfrew to transfer child protection proceedings involving two children from Renfrew County to Ottawa, where the children currently reside with their father.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party failed to establish a preponderance of convenience favouring transfer.

The court considered the statutory test under section 48(3) of the Child and Family Services Act, the best interests of the children, the location of witnesses, the children's connections to both jurisdictions, and the availability of court resources.

The court also addressed a related summary judgment motion regarding a third child, which resulted in a consent order placing the child with the mother subject to supervision.

The respondent sought costs in the amount of $16,712.50 for motions heard on March 2, 2012, relating to child access and support.

The respondent was substantially successful on the motions, with the applicant's contempt motion and taxi expense reimbursement motion dismissed, while the respondent's motion to strike was also dismissed.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis rather than substantial indemnity, finding that while the applicant exhibited problematic litigation behaviour, this had been addressed separately through a security for costs order.

The court fixed costs at $3,500.00, payable within 30 days or at $250.00 per month commencing October 1, 2012.

This is a child protection status review application involving a two-year-old child with a complex history of multiple placements and three separate child protection agencies.

The mother brought a motion for return of the child to her care or increased access.

The paternal great-aunt brought motions for party status and access.

The court dismissed the mother's motions, finding no material change in circumstances warranting modification of the temporary care order.

The court granted the paternal great-aunt party status and access, finding her plan merited consideration as an alternative placement option.

A motion by counsel for the respondent mother to be removed as counsel of record in a child protection status review application.

The Children's Aid Society sought Crown wardship for three children (ages 11, 10, and 5) who had been in care for approximately 18 months.

Counsel sought removal because Legal Aid would only fund representation for a summary judgment motion, not for trial.

The court refused the motion, finding that the harm to the children and administration of justice from delay outweighed the unfairness to counsel.

The court emphasized the importance of timely permanency planning in child protection cases and noted that counsel could seek public funding pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in New Brunswick v. J.G.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking crown wardship of four children who were apprehended due to severe physical abuse by their mother and her boyfriend.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing there was still time within the statutory limits to address her parenting deficits.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, noting the mother's deeply entrenched deficits, her failure to engage in meaningful remediation for 15 months, and the children's specialized needs.

The motion was granted and the children were made crown wards.

The father brought a motion to change a 2009 child support order and to rescind approximately $11,800 in arrears.

He argued he could not work due to a car accident, child-care responsibilities for his second family, and his pursuit of a music career.

The court found the father was intentionally under-employed and imputed a minimum wage income of $21,300.

The court adjusted the arrears retroactively to one year prior to the motion and ordered the father to repay the remaining arrears at $50 per month, provided he remains in good standing.

The applicant mother, residing in Manitoba, applied for child support for two children from the respondent father, residing in Ontario, under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act.

The respondent claimed undue hardship due to his obligations to his new wife, their two children, and his mother-in-law, as well as significant debt.

The court found that while the respondent's household income was higher, paying the full Guideline amount would cause undue hardship and detrimentally affect his ability to provide for his new family.

The court ordered a reduced child support amount of $400 per month and denied the applicant's request for retroactive support due to unexplained delay.