Family and Matrimonial Law - ONCJ

The mother (B.J.) brought a motion seeking an order for family reunification/reintegration therapy involving herself, the father (D.M.), and their child (S.M.).

The father and the Office of the Children's Lawyer opposed the motion, citing the child's strong and consistent views against contact with the mother.

The court found that the child's views were significantly influenced by the father, who displayed a lack of willingness to support the child's relationship with the mother and a disregard for judicial process.

Despite the child's stated reluctance, the court determined that reunification therapy was in the child's best interests, given the profound negative influence exerted by the father and the potential long-term negative effects on the child's emotional and psychological well-being.

The motion was granted, ordering all parties to attend and participate in the therapy, with costs to be shared equally.

The respondent father brought a motion to retroactively and prospectively reduce his child support obligations, which were based on an imputed income from a 2017 order.

He argued a material change in circumstances due to his reduced income while attending school.

The applicant mother opposed, arguing the father was intentionally underemployed.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding no material change in circumstances as his underemployment was a choice and he retained the ability to earn the previously imputed income.

The court emphasized that a payor cannot manufacture a material change by choosing to remain out of the workforce and that the onus is on the payor to justify why a previously imputed income level is no longer appropriate.

Pre-trial motions in a child protection proceeding involving two children (N. and H.) brought by the Children's Aid Society of Peel.

The Society sought to admit prior court decisions as evidence of past parenting and exclude further evidence on matters already adjudicated.

The respondent father sought to exclude prior decisions and adduce evidence regarding parenting of siblings, citing a recent Court of Appeal decision quashing the parents' criminal manslaughter conviction and ordering a new trial.

The court applied the principle of res judicata and found that prior findings regarding the care of children M., Am., and N. were not displaced by the fresh evidence regarding the cause of death.

The court admitted prior decisions as evidence of past parenting and estopped the parents from calling evidence on matters already adjudicated.

A custody and access dispute between separated parents of two children.

The applicant father sought joint custody and alternate week access, while the respondent mother sought sole custody and continuation of the existing limited access schedule.

The court found that the parties separated in May 2013 and that the father unilaterally implemented an alternate week arrangement in January 2015 without the mother's agreement.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer conducted two investigations recommending increased access for the father but not a full 50/50 arrangement.

The court found evidence of the father's physical abuse toward his former partners and adult daughter, though not toward the children in question.

The court ordered sole custody to the mother with an enhanced access schedule for the father based on the OCL's first report recommendations, rejecting the father's demand for equal time sharing.

The court also ordered retroactive child support and arrears payments.

The applicant society brought a motion for temporary care and custody of three First Nations children (ages 13, 10, and 7) following their apprehension by warrant due to domestic violence in the home.

The mother opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion.

The court applied the statutory framework under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, determining that reasonable grounds existed to believe the children were at risk of harm and could not be adequately protected by a non-removal order.

The court considered placement with the maternal grandfather as a relative under the statutory preference for kinship placements and found it to be in the children's best interests, subject to conditions including the removal of adult siblings from the grandfather's home.

A costs decision in a family law application involving custody, access, and child support.

The application was resolved through three case conferences resulting in a final settlement.

Both parents claimed costs, but the court found the mother was the more successful party.

The father was ordered to pay the mother's costs in the amount of $10,000 all-inclusive, representing a fair and reasonable amount proportionate to the issues involved.

This is a costs decision following a seven-day family law trial concerning access to children and child support.

The respondent sought costs of $26,266.74 following trial.

The court found divided success on the main issues: the respondent succeeded on section 7 expenses and her primary position on access subject to children's wishes, while the applicant succeeded on child support arrears and his primary claim for counselling to rebuild the parent-child relationship.

The court declined to award costs, finding that both parties behaved equally unreasonably on the central issue of access and that neither party had properly constituted settlement offers under the Family Law Rules.

The applicant father sought to assume jurisdiction in Ontario to change custody of the parties' nine-year-old daughter from the respondent mother to himself, and to find the mother in contempt for failing to comply with access orders.

The child had been living with the mother in Florida for three years pursuant to a consent order, but the mother had substantially failed to provide the ordered access to the father in Ontario.

The father obtained an emergency pick-up order in Florida and brought the child to Ontario.

The court declined to assume jurisdiction, finding that Florida was the child's habitual residence and that it would be more appropriate for the Florida court to exercise jurisdiction to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

However, the court made an interim order requiring the child's return to Florida conditional on the mother's undertakings regarding the child's safety and access to the father.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion to vary the mother's access to her seven-year-old daughter, seeking an order that access be at the Society's discretion.

The child had begun refusing to visit her mother in November 2017 after previously having regular, successful access.

The Society argued that forcing access would cause emotional and physical harm to the child.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while there was a sufficient change in circumstances, it was not in the child's best interests to suspend access.

The court emphasized the maximum contact principle, the lack of evidence-based reasons for the suspension, and the need for immediate counselling to address the underlying causes of the child's refusal.

The respondent father brought a motion to vary child support and reduce arrears accumulated under a final order requiring him to pay $375 per month.

The applicant mother opposed the motion.

The court found that while the father experienced a material change in circumstances by May 2009 (unemployment following layoffs), he was intentionally underemployed from May 2009 through May 2014.

The court imputed an annual income of $41,600 to the father based on his earning capacity as a certified drywall finisher, maintaining his support obligation at $375 per month for the retroactive period.

The court reduced arrears by $5,000 and ordered the father to repay remaining arrears at $500 per month, increasing to $675 per month following the child's adoption by the mother's new partner.

Applications by both parents for leave to bring status review applications with respect to Crown ward children.

The mother sought placement of the children under a supervision order; the father sought access.

The court dismissed both applications, finding that neither parent had demonstrated a prima facie case for review.

The mother's application was particularly problematic given her deliberate violation of a no-access order through surreptitious contact and her demonstrated indifference to the children's best interests.

The father's application was undermined by outstanding criminal charges and the risk of further incarceration.

The court also issued a restraining order prohibiting the mother from contacting the children, given her relentless pursuit of contact in defiance of court orders.

The respondent father sought an order to change the child's registered surname from the mother's maiden name to a hyphenated surname including his name.

The child was born during the parties' brief marriage and registered by the mother alone under the Vital Statistics Act.

The father argued that the mother's refusal to acknowledge him for registration purposes was unreasonable and that the court should exercise parens patriae jurisdiction to order the change.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Ontario Court of Justice lacks parens patriae jurisdiction and that even if it possessed such jurisdiction, the evidence supported the mother's decision not to acknowledge the father for registration purposes.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for temporary care and custody of a child, H., who was apprehended on June 5, 2014.

The father opposed the motion and proposed that the child be placed with community members (P.C. and R.C.), while the society sought placement with itself pending completion of a kinship assessment.

The court considered whether it should defer its decision pending completion of the kinship assessment process or decide the matter on the evidence before it.

The court granted temporary care and custody to the proposed kin caregivers, finding that the decision could be made without awaiting completion of the kinship assessment.

A motion by a third party seeking intervenor status, amicus curiae status, or party status in a child protection proceeding.

The movant, a religious leader and founder of a public accountability organization, sought to intervene on behalf of the respondent mother.

The court dismissed the motion on multiple grounds, including lack of jurisdiction of the Ontario Court of Justice to grant amicus curiae status to public interest groups, failure to meet the criteria for intervention, and concerns about delay and prejudice to the child.

The applicant sought to vary a child support order of $2,148 per month made on consent in Ontario by obtaining a provisional order in England reducing support to £130 per month.

The respondent opposed the variation and sought release of funds held in trust from the sale of the applicant's Ontario home.

The court found that the applicant had attorned to Ontario's jurisdiction by commencing a motion to change in Ontario while proceedings were pending under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act.

The court declined to confirm the provisional English order, finding discrepancies and omissions in the applicant's financial disclosure and determining that Ontario was the more convenient forum.

The court ordered the applicant to proceed with a motion to change in Ontario and released the trust funds to the respondent.

A child protection trial determining whether three children were in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act.

The Children's Aid Society sought a finding that the children had suffered physical harm inflicted by their parents through excessive corporal punishment, including beatings with belts, use of ginger root inserted anally as punishment, forced confinement to a garage, and threats.

The parents denied the allegations, claiming the children were influenced by the oldest child to fabricate abuse claims.

The court found the children credible and reliable, and determined that the parents had subjected the children to inappropriate and excessive physical discipline causing physical harm, warranting a protection finding.

The applicant sought costs for a successful motion regarding school placement for a child in a shared parenting arrangement.

The applicant was awarded costs of $3,000.00 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The court determined that the applicant was the successful party on the only issue before it—the choice of school—and that costs should be awarded at a level approaching substantial recovery rather than full recovery, as the applicant's offer to settle included terms the court declined to rule on and was therefore not as favourable as the court's ruling.

An interjurisdictional support order application brought by a father residing in Winnipeg, Manitoba against a mother residing in Sault Ste.

Marie, Ontario.

The father sought child support from the mother for their biological child and a child to whom he stood in loco parentis, and sought to vary or terminate existing support orders from British Columbia, Ontario, and Manitoba courts.

The application was converted to a case conference due to both parties' absence.

The court identified significant procedural deficiencies in the applicant's application and the respondent's failure to file required documentation, and adjourned the matter to allow both parties to cure these deficiencies.

The applicant was successful in her child support and section 7 expenses claim.

This costs decision addresses the quantum of costs to be awarded to the successful party.

The court found that the applicant acted reasonably and made exhaustive efforts to settle, while the respondent behaved unreasonably and inflexibly.

The court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis, fixing the fees component at $9,000.00 inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, plus an outstanding costs order of $1,000.00 from October 4, 2011.

The applicant mother sought costs following successful motions regarding custody, access, and child support.

The respondent father opposed the costs award and argued for a substantially reduced amount.

The court awarded costs to the successful applicant but declined to award costs on a full indemnity basis, citing the failure of both parties to serve offers to settle.

The court fixed costs at $10,000.00 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable at $250 per month commencing May 1, 2012.