Family and Matrimonial Law - ONCJ

This decision addresses a temporary care and custody motion under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Children’s Aid Society of Toronto sought to place the child, E.G., in the temporary care of the father, V.G., with supervised access for the mother, O.G. The court found that the mother’s significant mental health challenges, including erratic behavior and refusal of treatment, posed a risk of harm to the child.

The mother’s social media postings identifying the child and participants in the case were found to violate subsection 87(8) of the Act, leading to a prohibition on such postings and an order for their removal.

The court emphasized the child’s best interests, the need for stability, and the importance of protecting the integrity of child protection proceedings from cyberbullying and intimidation.

This decision addresses a motion to change parenting time and decision-making arrangements for the child Lailah, born in 2014, between parents Frankie May Dey and Ryan David Cronk.

The court found a material change in circumstances since the original 2014 order, including Mr. Cronk's stabilization and ongoing parental conflict.

The parties resolved most issues by consent, but the court considered whether to add Thursday overnight parenting time during school days.

The court declined to add Thursday overnights due to the child's best interests, the parents' poor communication, and the child's clear preference to maintain primary residence with the mother and limit school week transitions.

The court imposed additional orders to reduce conflict exposure and facilitate private communication between the child and each parent.

This decision addresses a contact order application by maternal grandparents seeking increased contact with their 6-year-old granddaughter.

The court carefully analyzes the best interests of the child under the Children’s Law Reform Act, considering the existing relationships, parental positions, and the child’s needs.

The court declines to defer to the parents’ wishes due to arbitrary and detrimental conduct by the mother in limiting contact.

It orders contact on one out of every three weekends plus extended holiday contact, balancing the child’s relationships with both sets of grandparents and parents, and emphasizing stability and quality of time over quantity.

The applicant mother sought sole decision-making, specific parenting time, travel/document orders, and special/extraordinary expenses for the three children of the marriage.

The respondent father sought joint decision-making and broader travel rights.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility, finding poor communication and a lack of mutual trust and respect between the parents.

The father's parenting time was limited to day visits, with overnights at the mother's discretion, due to lack of evidence for overnight accommodation.

The mother was granted authority to obtain children's documents and travel internationally without the father's consent, while the father requires the mother's written consent for international travel, citing a credible risk of non-return to Canada.

The father was ordered to pay s.7 arrears and 82% of ongoing special and extraordinary expenses.

The applicant sought joint decision-making and shared parenting, along with child and spousal support.

The respondent sought sole decision-making, primary residence, and child support from the applicant, with spousal support based on imputed income for the applicant.

The court found the parties had a high-conflict relationship and that the applicant's choices contributed to instability.

The court granted the respondent sole decision-making and primary residence, with the applicant having regular parenting time.

The court imputed income to the respondent for support purposes due to missed EI benefits but declined to impute income to the applicant due to her immigration status.

Spousal support was ordered payable by the respondent to the applicant, with arrears fixed, and the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) were adjusted due to the applicant's basic needs and immigration status.

The applicant sought to change child support provisions, requesting an increase and retroactive support based on the respondent father's imputed income and contribution to special expenses.

The respondent had a history of non-disclosure and underemployment.

The court imputed income to the respondent based on his lifestyle and assets, including regular family gifts, and ordered increased child support retroactive to April 1, 2019.

The court also ordered the respondent to contribute to the child's extraordinary expenses for tutoring and orthodontics, and to pay outstanding arrears.

The father brought a second motion to change parenting time, seeking increased time, changes to communication methods, and transfer locations.

The mother sought dismissal.

The court first addressed whether a material change in circumstances had occurred, finding that the termination of a restraining order and alleged visit cancellations by the mother did not constitute a material change.

Despite this, the court proceeded to analyze the child's best interests, giving significant weight to the child's expressed views and preferences from a Voice of the Child report, which indicated the child's stress from ongoing litigation and desire for the current schedule with flexibility.

The court dismissed the father's motion to change, maintaining the existing parenting order with minor amendments to allow for flexibility and direct communication between the child and either parent.

This motion for summary judgment concerned the placement of A.M., an Indigenous child, in extended society care.

The Children's Aid Society sought an order for extended care, while the biological mother opposed it, advocating for A.M.'s return to her care.

The court emphasized the "last resort" nature of extended care, particularly for Indigenous children, and the statutory priority for family and community placements under federal legislation.

The Society failed to demonstrate that there was no genuine issue for trial, specifically lacking evidence of exhaustive efforts to find permanent family or community placements.

The motion was dismissed, preserving the possibility of A.M.'s return to her mother's care after a full trial.

The court issued a costs endorsement following a motion hearing on custody, access, and child support.

The mother sought temporary custody and child support; the father sought joint custody and unsupervised access.

The parties agreed on child support and primary residence with the mother.

The court granted the mother temporary custody with supervised access to the father.

The mother sought costs of $4,746; the father sought no costs or minimal costs.

The court found the mother was the successful party on custody and parenting time issues and awarded costs of $2,000, payable at $125 per month starting March 1, 2020.

The court declined to enforce the costs order through the Family Responsibility Office as the costs were attributable to parenting issues, not support.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking resumption of court-ordered access to his child, make-up access, permission to amend his response to seek sole custody, transfer of residence if access continued to be denied, police enforcement of access, disclosure of Children's Aid records, and costs.

The respondent mother had denied all access since September 16, 2018, claiming the child had made allegations of mistreatment.

The Children's Aid Society investigated but did not verify the allegations.

The court found the mother in breach of the April 25, 2017 order and applied Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules to impose sanctions.

The court granted make-up access on specified dates, permission to amend the response, and allowed the applicant to serve the Children's Aid Societies for disclosure.

The maternal grandmother (M.T.) brought a motion seeking to maintain access to the child (L.T.) at two hours per week, or alternatively at least eight hours per month, following reductions in access ordered by the Children's Aid Society.

The child had been placed in extended society care following a summary judgment motion.

M.T. argued the Society had not demonstrated a material change in circumstances justifying the access reduction.

The Society maintained it had discretion to reduce access based on behavioural issues observed in the child and the need to normalize the child's life.

The court granted the motion in part, finding that while the Society had not acted contrary to the child's best interests in reducing access frequency, a temporary access order should be made allowing access in the community or at M.T.'s home rather than at the supervised family center.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion seeking the return of a child to the United Arab Emirates on the basis that the applicant father had wrongfully abducted the child from the U.A.E. and that the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction.

The father had taken the child to Canada on August 16, 2016, following a family dispute.

The mother obtained a custody order in the U.A.E. on January 9, 2017, providing her with custody and ordering the child's return.

The court found that the child was habitually resident in the U.A.E. at the time of removal, that Ontario lacked jurisdiction, and that no exception applied.

The court recognized the U.A.E. order and directed the immediate return of the child to the mother.

A trial decision addressing custody, access, child support, and spousal support following an application by the mother to modify a separation agreement.

The parties had shared joint custody with a three-day rotation since separation in 2012.

The mother sought sole custody or primary residence; the father sought to maintain joint custody with a week-about schedule.

The court maintained joint custody but modified the time-sharing arrangement to provide the mother with most school nights to facilitate homework assistance, while the father retained significant weekend time.

The court ordered child support under the shared custody provisions of the Child Support Guidelines and awarded spousal support for a seven-year term.

This is a costs decision following a motion to change a custody, access, and child support order.

The applicant sought costs of $9,038.60 for both the custody and access portion and the child support portion of the motion.

The respondent, appearing self-represented, claimed inability to pay.

The court awarded partial costs of $5,000.00 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes, finding the applicant acted reasonably and was substantially successful, while sanctioning the respondent's failure to provide timely financial disclosure.

The applicant mother brought two motions to change: (1) to terminate or order supervised access to the respondent father, and (2) to vary child support.

The father had been convicted of sexual assault of the mother and had a history of emotional and verbal abuse toward both the mother and children.

The court found a material change in circumstances warranting variation of access from unsupervised to supervised at a designated access centre.

The court also found the father's evidence regarding income unreliable and increased child support to the guideline table amount based on his 2014 income.

The court imposed restrictions on the father's ability to bring future motions without leave of court.

The applicant mother sought child support from the respondent father for their 8-year-old child pursuant to the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, 2002 (Ontario).

The mother sought retroactive support from May 1, 2014.

The father requested an earlier start date of January 1, 2014 and sought credit for payments made in 2014.

The court determined the appropriate start date, imputed income for 2015 based on the father's 2014 earnings due to his voluntary job departure, and calculated arrears.

The court ordered ongoing support based on the father's current income with a repayment plan for arrears.

This is a decision on costs arising from three motions in a family law matter concerning custody and access of a child.

The applicant sought to change the primary residence of the parties' son from the mother to the father, while the mother sought to modify the father's access and require family counselling.

The court dismissed both motions heard on August 31, 2015, finding no compelling reasons for an immediate change to the status quo pending trial.

The court also addressed costs of an urgent motion heard on July 10, 2015, which the mother brought due to the father's misleading conduct regarding the resumption of access.

The court found the father's conduct amounted to bad faith and awarded the mother costs on a full recovery basis for the July 10 motion, while dismissing both parties' costs claims for the August 31 motions.

A child protection application brought by the Children's Aid Society against the respondent mother was dismissed after a 10-day trial spread over four months.

The respondent sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, alleging the Society acted unfairly by filing voluminous documents, failing to investigate fully, and advancing seven unproven statutory grounds.

The court found no exceptional circumstances warranting a costs award against the Society, concluding the Society acted appropriately within its statutory mandate, the grounds alleged were well-founded and consistently communicated, and the respondent's failure to address document admissibility prior to trial was not attributable to the Society's conduct.

This is a costs decision arising from a temporary motion for custody and child support of a child born in December 2011.

The applicant mother sought custody, a specified access schedule, and child support.

The respondent father opposed the custody order and sought a different access schedule with overnight visits, as well as the appointment of the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The court granted temporary custody to the mother with specified day access to the father (no overnights), ordered child support based on the father's prior year income, and declined to appoint the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The mother was substantially successful on all issues.

The court awarded costs to the mother, finding she acted reasonably throughout and served a reasonable offer to settle, while the father acted unreasonably by failing to make a counter-offer to settle.

The grandmother sought costs against the Children's Aid Society following a temporary care and custody motion in a child protection proceeding.

The grandmother argued the Society acted unfairly by failing to investigate her as a potential caregiver despite her close relationship with the children and her offer to provide care.

The Society maintained it acted professionally and in good faith.

The court found that while the Society could have been more diligent in investigating the grandmother's plan, its conduct did not amount to unreasonable, unfair, or indefensible behaviour when viewed in context of the emergency circumstances and timeline of events.

The grandmother's request for costs was denied.