Family and Matrimonial Law - ONCJ

This is a costs endorsement following a trial where the mother (applicant) was the successful party, as the father's (respondent's) motion to significantly reduce his child and spousal support obligations was dismissed.

The mother sought $13,000 in costs.

The court found that the mother's offer to settle did not meet the technical requirements of subrule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules for enhanced costs because it expired before the hearing started.

However, considering the father's unreasonable conduct, including deliberate under-employment and failure to make an offer to settle, and the mother's reasonable positions, the court awarded the mother $9,000 in costs.

The costs were ordered to be paid in monthly installments and enforced as an incident of support by the Family Responsibility Office, given the case was entirely about support.

This is a status review application concerning a child in the care of the Children's Aid Society of Toronto.

The child was apprehended at birth due to the mother's history of substance abuse and failure to engage in prenatal care.

The mother sought return of the child to her care, while the Society sought an order for extended Society wardship with a view to adoption by the child's foster mother.

The court found that while the mother had made significant progress in maintaining sobriety and demonstrating parenting capacity during supervised visits, she had not yet demonstrated the ability to parent the child full-time without supervision.

The court ordered extended Society wardship but granted the mother monthly unsupervised access to maintain the relationship.

In a child protection matter, the paternal aunt sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis against the Children's Aid Society, alleging that the Society acted unreasonably and in bad faith by failing to support her custody plan earlier than January 2018.

The Society had initially pursued a supervision order with the children remaining in the aunt's care, but later amended its application to seek a permanent custody order under section 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The court dismissed the costs claim, finding that the Society did not act in a patently unfair or indefensible manner and that it properly fulfilled its statutory mandate to assess competing plans fairly and with an open mind.

The applicant mother sought parental support from her estranged adult daughter under s. 32 of the Family Law Act.

The mother claimed financial destitution, while the daughter, a successful professional, opposed the application and sought a restraining order, citing a history of severe emotional and physical abuse.

The court dismissed the mother's claim, finding she failed to establish financial need, as her destitution was a result of her own reckless spending.

Furthermore, the court held that the mother's abusive conduct meant she had not provided adequate care or support to the daughter, and her unconscionable behaviour disentitled her to support.

A restraining order was granted against the mother.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion seeking an order of Crown wardship without access for five children.

The mother did not oppose the motion.

The father opposed, proposing a kin plan where the children would live with his aunt.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the children's special needs (including FASD), the father's ongoing parenting deficits, and the unfeasibility of the proposed kin plan.

The court granted the summary judgment, making the children Crown wards without access.

The Director of the Family Responsibility Office brought a default hearing against the father for child support arrears totaling over $164,000.

The father claimed inability to pay due to business struggles, caring for his mother, and being on social assistance.

The court found the father lacked credibility, had hidden income, and failed to provide adequate financial disclosure.

The court ordered a graduated payment schedule starting at $600 per month and increasing to $1,800 per month, with a committal order of 3 days in jail for each payment in default, up to a maximum of 180 days.

In a child protection proceeding, the mother sought the return of her three-year-old child to her care following an apprehension triggered by her mental health crisis and the father's arrest.

The child had been placed in the temporary care of the paternal grandparents.

The court determined that the hearing was an originating temporary care and custody motion, not a motion to change, and that both parents had charge of the child prior to apprehension.

Applying the test under section 51(3) of the Child and Family Services Act, the court found that the mother presented a better plan of care and ordered the child returned to her custody subject to society supervision.

The mother sought permission to move the residence of her three children from Windsor to Mississauga prior to a summary judgment hearing in a child protection proceeding.

The Children's Aid Society and the Children's Lawyer supported the move, but the father of the youngest child opposed it.

The court applied the principles for temporary relocation in child protection cases, finding that the mother had not demonstrated compelling circumstances to justify the move before the hearing.

The court noted that the move would severely compromise the father's ability to exercise access due to financial constraints.

The motion was dismissed.

The children's aid society apprehended three children from their father's care due to concerns about his inability to control his temper and excessive discipline.

The society sought an interim order placing the children with their mother and restricting the father's access.

The father brought motions to strike the society's affidavit and dismiss the protection application as an abuse of process, arguing bias and a right to refuse cooperation.

The court dismissed the father's motions, finding no abuse of process and that his refusal to cooperate with services raised valid protection concerns.

Applying the interim placement test, the court found a real risk of emotional and physical harm if the children were returned to the father.

The children were placed with the mother on an interim basis, and the father was granted supervised access subject to strict conditions.

The Children's Aid Society sought Crown wardship without access for a child who had been in foster care for almost six years.

The mother and maternal grandparents sought placement of the child in their care.

The court found that the child had formed a secure attachment to her foster family and that removing her would cause significant, irreversible emotional harm.

The court also found that the mother and grandparents could not meet the child's emotional needs.

The court ordered Crown wardship for the purpose of adoption and denied access to the mother and grandparents, finding that access would not be beneficial or meaningful and would risk destabilizing the child's placement.

Two unmarried parents of a two-year-old child each brought motions for temporary custody following their separation.

The mother left the family home with the child and went to a shelter for abused women.

The father subsequently retained the child without the mother's consent and commenced a custody application.

The court rejected the father's request for equal time-sharing and instead awarded temporary custody to the mother, with the father receiving alternate weekend access and two weekday evening visits per week.

The court imposed parenting rules governing decision-making, removal of the child from the region, daycare attendance, medical care, and substance use restrictions.

A child protection agency sought to reopen a trial after evidence had concluded and submissions had been made, but before judgment was rendered.

The agency wished to introduce a psychological assessment of the child conducted by an expert who had not testified during the trial.

The respondent mother opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the evidence could have been adduced during the agency's case-in-chief, that reopening would cause significant delay in a matter where timely permanency planning was critical, and that the timing of the motion suggested the agency only sought to introduce the evidence after confirming it would support their case.

The court found that allowing the motion would be unfair to the respondent and contrary to the child's best interests.

The court determined costs following a motion to change parenting arrangements for a 13-year-old child.

The applicant mother was substantially successful in her opposition to the respondent father's motion for temporary custody and overnight access.

The father's motion was converted from an initial contempt allegation to a motion to change.

The court awarded costs to the successful applicant mother in the amount of $11,500, considering the factors under the Family Law Rules including the parties' litigation behaviour, the complexity of the issues, and the reasonableness of legal fees.

The applicant Society sought an order of Crown wardship with no access for two children.

The respondent parents conceded the children were in need of protection due to their ongoing struggles with drug addiction but requested the children be returned to their care under a supervision order.

The court found that the initial apprehension of the children was not justified by the evidence and that the Society had unreasonably restricted the parents' access and failed to support their rehabilitation.

Despite the parents' ongoing addiction issues, the court found they had a stable, supportive relationship, strong extended family support, and a deep bond with the children.

The court concluded it was in the children's best interests to be returned to their parents' care pursuant to a reintegration plan and a strict supervision order requiring drug testing and treatment.

The applicant father sought joint custody and access, while the respondent mother sought sole custody and child support.

During the trial, the mother relocated to Alberta with the child to secure better employment and family support.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, finding the parties were unable to communicate effectively and the mother had been the primary caregiver since birth.

The court permitted the mother's relocation to Alberta, finding it was in the child's best interests, and ordered a phased-in access schedule for the father.

The father was also ordered to pay his proportionate share of section 7 child care expenses.

The respondent mother brought a motion for temporary spousal support.

She had quit her retail management job due to stress and anxiety, and sought support while upgrading her education to pursue a new career.

The court found her career plan lacked concrete details and noted she was capable of working in a non-managerial role.

The court imputed income to the mother based on her work history and dismissed the motion for temporary spousal support, finding her financial need was largely self-created.

The applicant mother brought a motion to transfer her motion to change a final custody order from Elliot Lake to Brantford, arguing it should be heard together with a child protection proceeding involving her third child.

The respondents, who have had custody of the two children in Elliot Lake since 2003, opposed the transfer.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the preponderance of evidence regarding the children's best interests, including their education, friends, and community ties, is located in Elliot Lake, and there was no merit to dragging the respondents into the applicant's child protection litigation in Brantford.

The mother brought a motion seeking leave to extend the time to file her Answer/Plan of Care to an amended status review application.

The child had been out of the mother's care for over 19 months and was thriving in the care of the maternal grandmother.

The mother had missed the filing deadline and had not seen the child for over five months.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the mother failed to present a realistic plan of care or establish that granting the extension was in the child's best interests, emphasizing the child's need for permanency.

In a child protection proceeding involving two children, the applicant society and the respondent father sought the appointment of independent legal counsel for the children.

The respondent mother opposed the appointment, arguing it would increase the children's stress and draw them further into the high-conflict litigation.

The court held that the children, aged 12 and 14, had a right to be heard and that independent counsel would provide an objective evaluation of their interests.

The court ordered the Office of the Children's Lawyer to provide separate representation for each child.

The applicant step-father sought to adopt his wife's 12-year-old child and brought a motion to dispense with the consent of both the birth father and the child.

The applicant argued that the child believed the applicant was his biological father and that learning the truth would cause emotional harm.

The court dismissed the motion to dispense with the birth father's consent because no genuine efforts were made to serve him.

The court also dismissed the motion to dispense with the child's consent, finding insufficient expert evidence of emotional harm and emphasizing the child's statutory right to participate in the adoption process.