Family and Matrimonial Law - ONCJ

The respondent father brought a motion to set aside two final court orders concerning parenting and child support, arguing technological issues prevented his participation and that the applicant mother had agreed to mediation.

He sought leave to file an Answer/Claim, shared parenting, and recalculation of child support.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the father had adequate notice and made an informed choice not to participate, and that his claims lacked sufficient merit.

The applicant sought custody of two children and sought to restrict the respondent's access to supervised visits only, citing concerns about physical discipline and anger management.

The respondent sought to restore what he characterized as the status quo of every weekend access.

The court found that the status quo was the applicant having custody with the respondent exercising weekend access and paying chart child support.

The court rejected the applicant's request for supervised access, finding insufficient evidence to warrant such restriction.

The court established an access schedule of every other weekend and midweek Wednesday visits, with special Christmas access provisions.

The court emphasized the importance of both parents supporting the children's relationship with the other parent and discouraged cross-examination of children about their time with the other parent.

In a motion to change a final order concerning parental access to a child, the respondent failed to comply with a court order requiring payment of $500 toward accumulated costs awards totalling $3,500.

The respondent also failed to produce the child's birth certificate and health card as ordered.

The court struck the respondent's pleadings under Family Law Rules 1(8)(c) and directed an uncontested trial to proceed, finding the respondent's non-compliance demonstrated contempt for the court process and a lack of commitment to meaningful participation in the proceedings.

The applicant father and respondent mother, who never lived together, brought competing motions regarding temporary access and child support for their infant child.

The applicant sought gradually increasing unsupervised access without geographic restrictions.

The respondent sought extended supervised access at a family visit centre and various preconditions.

The court granted the applicant's motion in substantial part, ordering a phased transition from supervised to unsupervised access beginning with Saturday visits at the family visit centre, expanding to community access in Dufferin County and Peel Region, and eventually to the Greater Toronto Area.

The court increased child support to reflect the applicant's increased income and ordered proportionate contribution to daycare expenses.

The court emphasized the importance of both parents recognizing each other's roles and building trust for the child's benefit.

This is a child protection matter under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act concerning a medically fragile 13-month-old child with significant cardiac defects.

The Society sought authority to make medical decisions for the child, including potential do-not-resuscitate orders.

The mother sought to retain authority to consent to medical treatment.

The court found that the mother had consistently demonstrated sound judgment in making medical decisions for the child throughout her hospitalization and post-discharge care.

The court granted the mother authority to consent to and authorize any medical treatment for the child, finding that absent compelling evidence of parental incapacity, the least intrusive intervention consistent with the child's best interests is to preserve parental decision-making authority, particularly regarding critical medical decisions such as do-not-resuscitate orders.

A motion to vary a joint custody order and an accompanying contempt motion regarding denial of access to a child.

The father sought sole custody of the child and found the mother in contempt of a prior custody order.

The court found material change in circumstances based on the mother's deliberate denial of access, defiant courtroom conduct, and her own statement that she no longer wanted custody.

The father was granted sole custody with the mother receiving specified access.

The mother was found in contempt on three occasions and ordered to pay fines totaling $1,500.00.

Child support obligations were recalculated with the father owing arrears and the mother ordered to pay support to the father going forward.

A status review application sought to grant custody of two children to their paternal grandparents pursuant to section 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The children had been in the grandparents' care since 2008.

The applicant initially sought consent orders with agreed findings of ongoing risk, but the agreed statement of facts was insufficient.

Subsequently, a summary judgment motion was filed combining consent provisions with summary judgment procedures.

The court refused to endorse the orders, finding that the procedural combination was improper and that certain pre-conditions in the affidavit required formal adoption by the biological parents through their signatures.

The matter was adjourned for a proper consent hearing.

The applicant sought to vary his sentence for being a party to child abduction in violation of a court order.

He requested deletion of house arrest conditions, travel restrictions outside the province, and contact restrictions with his daughter and grandchildren in Poland.

The court found that the house arrest conditions had already been served.

However, the court dismissed the application to remove travel and contact restrictions, finding that granting such variation would aid in the continuation of the abduction offence and continue the risk to the children.

The applicant child protection agency moved to end the intervener status of the maternal grandparents in a child protection proceeding.

The grandparents had been granted limited intervener rights under section 39(3) of the Child and Family Services Act.

However, they subsequently breached the terms of a court order by including confidential information from the child protection file in a separate custody application under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The agency sought to revoke their intervener status as a sanction for this breach.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the breach was serious, the circumstances—including the counsel's inadvertence, immediate withdrawal of the application, and the limited harm caused—did not warrant removal of intervener status.

The respondent father sought to extend the time to serve and file an Application for an Openness Order following receipt of a Notice of Intention to Place a Child for Adoption and Notice of Termination of Access.

The father was served on December 11, 2012, with a 30-day deadline to file.

He attended court on January 10, 2013, still within the deadline, but did not file the application.

He subsequently filed a Form 14B motion on February 10, 2013, requesting an extension.

The court found it had no jurisdiction to extend the prescribed 30-day time limit under the Family Law Rules and dismissed the motion.

The court noted that the father received inadequate legal advice from duty counsel at the Family Law Information Centre and should have been directed to immediately serve and file the application on January 10, 2013.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a 2007 child support order, initially seeking joint custody with primary residence of one child with him and the other with the mother, later claiming primary custody of both children.

The court found no material change in circumstances warranting a change in custody arrangements.

The children remained in the care and control of the applicant mother with unrestricted access to the father.

The court also found the father had significantly underpaid child support obligations over five years and calculated arrears of $6,155.78.

Ongoing child support was adjusted based on the father's actual income.

The father was ordered to pay the mother's costs of $3,000.00.

The Children's Aid Society brought a child protection application alleging that two children were at risk due to a pattern of neglect and physical assault by their father.

The father subsequently brought a motion for unsupervised access to the children.

The court found that while the children have a fundamental right to maintain contact with their non-custodial parent, the allegations raised sufficient safety concerns to warrant supervised access.

The court ordered supervised access at the paternal grandparents' home, supervised by the paternal grandmother, with specific frequency and conditions, including restrictions on alcohol and drug consumption within 24 hours of visits.

The Children's Aid Society sought Crown wardship with no access for two children based on parental drug use and alleged protection concerns.

The court found that while both parents struggle with long-standing drug addictions, the Society's apprehension of the children was not justified on the evidence presented.

The court determined that the children should be returned to parental care pursuant to a supervision order with a reintegration plan, finding that the parents' drug addictions, while a legitimate concern, did not preclude their ability to parent with appropriate support and monitoring.

The court was critical of the Society's restrictive approach to access and lack of support for the parents' rehabilitation efforts.

This is a summary judgment motion brought by the Children's Aid Society seeking a final order for placement of two children with their father and stepmother pursuant to section 57(1) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The children had been placed with their stepmother following a protection application initiated due to the mother's drug overdose.

The court found that the mother, while making some progress in addressing her substance abuse issues, had not established a sustained lifestyle change and had not demonstrated that the children would be better served by residing with her.

The court granted the society's motion, finding no triable issues and that the children's stability in their current placement outweighed any potential benefit of returning them to the mother's care.

The applicant mother sought child support and section 7 expense contributions from the respondent father for three children.

The father acknowledged his legal responsibility but disputed the income imputation and special expenses claimed.

The court found the father was intentionally under-employed and imputed annual income of $36,960.00, resulting in monthly child support of $717.00.

The court awarded contributions toward swimming lessons, religious studies, and child care for the youngest child only.

The restraining order against the father was terminated.

Application under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, 2002 to change a child support order originally made by the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta on July 31, 2008.

The respondent sought to reduce his child support obligations based on changed financial circumstances.

The court recalculated arrears for each year from 2008 to 2012, adjusting the respondent's imputed income based on actual tax assessments and pension receipts.

The court found total arrears of $65,282 as of June 30, 2012, but exercised discretion to fix arrears at $40,000 due to the respondent's financial circumstances.

The respondent was ordered to pay $359 per month in child support going forward based on an imputed income of $45,000, and to pay the applicant's costs of $1,250.

This was a second appearance on a Notice of Default in a child support enforcement matter.

The Family Responsibility Office sought a final default order fixing arrears at $9,358.18 with payment within 30 days, ongoing child support payments of $300.00 per month with incarceration consequences for default, and authority to seek future warrants of committal on an ex parte basis.

The respondent payor offered to have wages garnished at 50% and proposed paying $800.00 monthly ($300.00 ongoing support, $500.00 toward arrears).

The court found the payor's history of non-compliance and repeated defaults warranted a firm order.

The court granted the application with modified terms: arrears fixed at $9,358.18 payable within 90 days (by August 8, 2012) with threat of 60-day incarceration, ongoing support of $300.00 monthly with 3-day incarceration per missed payment, and authority for ex parte warrant applications.

The applicant sought temporary spousal support in a family law application.

The respondent brought a motion to transfer the proceedings to the Superior Court of Justice, arguing that property issues required adjudication.

The Ontario Court of Justice granted the applicant temporary spousal support of $559 per month and transferred the matter to Superior Court.

The applicant sought costs of the motion.

The court awarded nominal costs of $2,500 to the applicant, payable by the respondent forthwith and enforceable as support, considering the significant income disparity between the parties and the applicant's success on the motion.

The applicant brought a motion to vary a temporary order made August 3, 2011, seeking to terminate his obligation to contribute one-third of daycare costs (approximately $350 per month) for the parties' child.

The applicant, pursuing a PhD in physics and funded through OSAP, argued the obligation was too onerous.

The respondent was attending Teachers College with expectations of graduation and employment.

The court found no significant change in circumstances warranting variation.

Both parties had chosen to pursue higher education simultaneously, creating financial burden that must be fairly shared.

The court dismissed the motion but directed the respondent to maximize tax deductions available for daycare expenses, with the applicant's obligation limited to one-third of the net cost after tax benefits.

The respondent brought a motion to change a child support order following a material change in circumstances.

The respondent's employment was terminated in December 2010, and his income was reduced from $58,000 to $21,600 from Employment Insurance.

The applicant alleged the respondent had undisclosed self-employment income but failed to provide evidence despite being given an opportunity to do so.

The court found a change in circumstances warranted a variation of child support but imposed an obligation on the respondent to make reasonable efforts to obtain employment.

Child support was reduced from $550 to $180 per month for 2011 and $166 per month from 2012 onward.

Section 7 expenses were restructured with a 50/50 cost-sharing arrangement capped at $250 annually for the respondent's share.