Family and Matrimonial Law - ONCJ

Two motions were heard regarding parenting time, government documentation, international travel, and child support for a child born in October 2023.

The parties never cohabited.

The mother sought to impute income to the father based on his corporate business operating group homes, claiming he sheltered money to reduce child support obligations.

The father sought expanded parenting time and opposed the mother's travel and documentation requests.

The court ordered a gradual increase in parenting time, permitted the mother to obtain government documentation and travel internationally without the father's consent, and imputed an annual income of $120,000 to the father for child support purposes based on an amount the parties had previously agreed upon, finding the father's claimed $60,000 salary was not credible given his business grossed over one million dollars annually.

This is a status review application in a child protection matter involving an 11-year-old child who had been in the care of the Children's Aid Society for 33 months.

The court determined that the child was in need of protection and that intervention through a court order was necessary.

The applicant sought extended society care with access at the agency's discretion.

The respondent mother sought placement of the child in her care subject to a supervision order.

The court found that the mother's mental health issues, lack of insight, combative behaviour, and failure to address protection concerns made her unsuitable to care for the child.

The court ordered extended society care with access to the mother at the agency's discretion.

The applicant sought child support for her son Lukas from the respondent father.

The central issue was determining the respondent's annual income for child support purposes.

The respondent, a self-employed plumber, declared minimal income of approximately $9,744 annually while maintaining expenses of $55,674 and paying $665 monthly in child support for another child.

The court found this financial picture implausible and drew an adverse inference that the respondent was earning substantially more than declared.

The court imputed annual net income of $45,000 based on the respondent's prior employment history and current lifestyle, resulting in monthly child support of $418 and arrears of $14,186.

This is a costs decision following a motion to change custody and access arrangements for a child.

The applicant sought variation of a joint custody order and sole custody, along with a defined access schedule.

The applicant was substantially successful, obtaining 11 of 12 requested relief items.

The respondent acted unreasonably throughout the proceedings, including non-compliance with court orders, refusal to pay child support, and abusive conduct.

The court awarded costs to the applicant as the successful party, considering the respondent's egregious behaviour and the need to sanction inappropriate litigation conduct.

This is a costs decision following a trial on child support and spousal support issues.

The applicant sought costs of $115,000.00 all inclusive, while the respondent submitted that costs should be fixed at $18,000.00 with a $3,000.00 set-off.

The trial resulted in an order for ongoing child support based on structured settlement annuity payments, dismissal of the applicant's retroactive child support claim, and dismissal of the respondent's request to terminate spousal support.

The court found the applicant was substantially more successful on the significant issues and awarded costs of $47,000.00 inclusive, payable at $1,200.00 per month commencing July 1, 2018.

A focused trial concerning child support for an 8-year-old child born to separated parents who had entered into a Separation Agreement providing for shared custody and a set-off child support arrangement.

The primary issues were determination of each party's income (particularly the father's rental income and expenses), retroactive and prospective child support arrears, section 7 special or extraordinary expenses (cello, mandarin, and swimming lessons), and the allocation of tax credits and benefits.

The court determined the parties' incomes after careful analysis of the father's rental properties and expenses, fixed arrears at $7,999.09, and ordered prospective child support with both parents paying the other based on their respective incomes.

The court awarded costs to the mother following a successful motion for temporary child support.

The mother sought $7,500 in costs for the motion and two case conferences.

The court found the mother was the more successful party, having obtained child support of $346 monthly starting June 1, 2016, a contribution to 2016 daycare expenses of $1,130, and fixed arrears of $5,974 payable at $125 monthly.

The father's late settlement offer and unreasonable conduct were considered, but did not rise to the level of bad faith.

The court awarded costs of $3,600 inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, payable at $150 monthly starting September 1, 2017.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a child support order requiring him to pay $449 monthly.

He sought to eliminate support payments for October 2016 to March 2017 and reduce monthly support to $227 based on claimed annual income of $25,680.

The applicant mother opposed the motion and alternatively sought income imputation at $37,222.

The father had lost his employment in October 2016 due to his own misconduct (failing to renew his commercial driver's license and concealing this from his employer), resulting in termination for cause.

By trial, he had obtained part-time employment at $17.90 per hour.

The court found a change in circumstances but held that the father's misconduct in causing his job loss warranted a nuanced approach to arrears and prospective support.

This is a costs endorsement following a family law trial concerning custody, access, child support, and the mother's ability to move the child's residence and travel internationally.

The parties settled most issues during trial, with the mother achieving substantial success on the remaining contested issues regarding relocation and international travel.

The court awarded costs to the mother, finding her to be the successful party while considering the divided success on settled issues and the father's unreasonable behaviour in underpaying child support and failing to satisfy a prior costs order.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking to stay or suspend enforcement of child support provisions in a separation agreement filed with the court, to stay enforcement of a support deduction order, and to direct the Director of the Family Responsibility Office to hold collected monies pending resolution of his application to change child support.

The applicant mother opposed the motion and sought immediate release of collected funds to satisfy arrears.

The central dispute concerned whether the family had continued to reside together after the separation agreement was signed in 2007, which would affect the father's support obligations.

The court found a genuine entitlement issue requiring trial and ordered a partial release of funds to the mother with the balance held pending final determination.

This is a costs endorsement following a two-day family law trial involving access, custody, a restraining order, and child support.

The applicant mother was substantially successful, obtaining day access with supervised exchanges, a final restraining order, retroactive child support, and imputed income for the respondent father.

The respondent's pleadings on support issues were struck due to non-compliance with disclosure orders.

The mother sought costs of $5,550, while the respondent claimed inability to pay.

The court awarded costs of $5,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable within 45 days.

This is a costs decision following a four-day trial concerning parenting and support arrangements for the parties' child.

The applicant (father) sought no costs order, while the respondent (mother) claimed costs of $15,097.25 for legal assistance received during the litigation.

The court found the mother was the successful party based on comparison of settlement offers and trial positions.

The court awarded costs of $10,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable within 90 days.

The court declined to award costs for work done at prior steps in the case, limiting the award to work performed for the trial step.

This is a costs decision following the dismissal of a motion to change a custody and access order.

The mother sought full recovery of costs ($14,046.58) after successfully defending against the father's motion to change, which sought access to three children and termination of a restraining order.

The father's motion was dismissed on the basis that he had not established a material change in circumstances.

The court awarded costs to the mother as the successful party, but reduced the amount to $7,200 (inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST) after considering the factors under the Family Law Rules, the father's limited financial circumstances, and the principle that costs awards must be proportional to the amount in issue and the outcome.

A summary judgment motion brought by the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking to make two children crown wards without access to their parents for the purpose of adoption.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing there were triable issues regarding placement in her care or with alternative caregivers.

The father of one child consented to crown wardship but opposed the no-access provision.

The court found no triable issue regarding disposition and ordered the children to be made crown wards, but found triable issues regarding access that required a full trial to determine.

This is a costs decision following a motion hearing on family law matters.

The court had previously ordered the respondent (father) to pay temporary child support of $1,331 per month and spousal support of $350 per month, and granted the applicant (mother) supervised access to the children with a prohibition on removal from Ontario.

The applicant sought costs of either $9,859.69 or alternatively $6,017.69.

The court assessed costs considering the parties' conduct, the lack of settlement offers, the proportionality of time claimed, and the complexity of the issues.

The court awarded costs of $3,800 inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable within 45 days.

The applicant mother sought a stand-alone order for financial disclosure from the respondent father, who is obligated to pay child support under a domestic contract.

The parties had agreed that future disputes concerning child support would be dealt with by arbitration.

The applicant sought the respondent's tax returns, notices of assessment, and financial statements from his company to assist in determining whether to claim a change in child support due to material change in circumstances.

The respondent refused disclosure, arguing it was irrelevant because the support amount was not determined by reference to his income and the parties agreed support would not be varied before January 2016.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that section 25 of the Child Support Guidelines applies only to court orders for child support, not to domestic agreements, even when registered with the court.

The court noted that the applicant could seek disclosure through the pending arbitration process.

The respondent parents brought a motion under Rule 20(5) of the Family Law Rules seeking disclosure of the names and addresses of all private investigators hired by the Children's Services society, along with copies of all correspondence, retainer agreements, and exchanges between the society and investigators since November 2012.

The parents alleged they had observed unknown persons conducting surveillance of their home and taking photographs.

The society claimed litigation privilege over the surveillance materials.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the society has a broad disclosure obligation under Stinchcombe principles, litigation privilege protects work product prepared in contemplation of litigation, including surveillance conducted for litigation purposes that has not been relied upon as evidence.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a summary judgment motion seeking a finding that a five-year-old child was in need of protection under section 37(2)(b) of the Child and Family Services Act and a Crown wardship disposition to free the child for adoption.

The child's mother opposed the motion but was unprepared at the hearing and had recently changed counsel.

The court denied the mother's adjournment request and proceeded with the motion.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial on any of the society's claims or the mother's counterclaim for return of the child to her custody.

The child's need for protection was grounded in the mother's chronic cocaine addiction and inability to maintain long-term sobriety despite multiple treatment attempts over more than two years.

The court found that less intrusive options, including return to the mother or society wardship, were not appropriate given the child's need for stable, permanent parenting and the mother's demonstrated pattern of relapse.

The court granted the society's motion and made the child a Crown ward for the purpose of adoption.

The respondent sought to terminate spousal support under a separation agreement, arguing that the applicant was living in a spousal relationship with another man and was intentionally underemployed.

The applicant sought to increase spousal support, citing her retirement.

The court found no material change in circumstances sufficient to justify modifying the separation agreement.

The applicant's retirement at age 60 was consistent with the parties' intentions at the time of signing, as the respondent was already retired.

The evidence did not establish that the applicant was in a spousal relationship.

Both motions to change were dismissed.

The father brought a motion to change a 2009 order that granted no access to his son Adrian.

The father sought to establish a material change in circumstances since the trial order, proposing a graduated return to access beginning with supervised visits.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing there had been no material change.

The court found that the father's evidence of not using non-prescription drugs, having no new criminal charges, and attending three parenting sessions fell far short of establishing a material change in circumstances.

The court noted the father showed no insight into his past conduct, accepted no responsibility, and demonstrated no change in his attitudes or behaviour.

The motion was dismissed.