Family and Matrimonial Law - ONCJ

This decision addresses the issue of costs in family law motions concerning parenting, child support, and relocation.

The court analyzed the application of subrule 24(12) regarding costs consequences of failure to accept a settlement offer, finding that the mother’s offer was as good as or better than the court’s order on key issues such as primary residence, decision-making responsibility, and supervised parenting time.

The father was ordered to pay costs, but the amount was reduced due to his success on the relocation issue.

The court emphasized the importance of reasonableness, proportionality, and the parties’ conduct in awarding costs, noting both parties acted unreasonably and neither was a credible witness.

The decision also highlights the necessity of a bill of costs for proper assessment and the court’s discretion in setting payment plans.

The applicant, Maria Netkal, sought costs against the respondent, Yahya Gulma, following his withdrawal of a motion to change child support.

The court found the respondent failed to rebut the presumption that he should pay the applicant's costs, given his history of non-disclosure and attempts to relitigate previously decided issues.

The court awarded the applicant $4,000.00 in costs, payable monthly, and enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

The respondent's request for costs was dismissed.

The applicant, Katarzyna Krzewina, brought a motion seeking security for costs and advance payment of interim expenses from the respondent, Chad Beaumont, in the context of his motion to change child support.

The court dismissed the motion for security for costs, finding that while the respondent's financial disclosure was entangled, his claim was not "so devoid of merit" as to be a nuisance or waste of time.

The court also dismissed the motion for advance payment of expenses, as the applicant failed to provide evidence on the necessity or reasonableness of the fees and disbursements, or that she was unable to fund the litigation without the order.

The applicant father sought leave to bring a motion to change a final custody and access order that prohibited him from having access to his two youngest children and from coming within 100 meters of their residence, school, or daycare.

The father argued that his criminal proceedings had ended and he had completed an anger management course.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the father failed to establish either an arguable case of material change in circumstances or that allowing the motion would not constitute an abuse of process.

The father continued to engage in the conduct that formed the basis of the original order, including posting derogatory comments about the mother on social media, breaching multiple court orders, and displaying hostile and aggressive behavior in court.

The applicant father brought a summary judgment motion seeking sole custody of two children and termination or supervised access for the respondent mother.

The respondent mother did not file responding materials and indicated she would not participate in the court process.

The court found no genuine issue requiring trial and granted the father sole custody.

The mother had a documented history of violence, anger management issues, and involvement with child protection authorities.

She had ceased all contact with the children since February 2019, refusing to see them unless they returned to her care.

The children had been in the father's continuous care for over four years and expressed preference to remain with him, with supervised access to their mother if any contact were to occur.

Motion to change child support terms in a Separation Agreement dated January 13, 2009.

The primary dispute concerned how post-secondary education expenses for two daughters should be shared between parents, specifically regarding the allocation and use of Registered Education Savings Plans (RESPs).

The mother sought to vary the agreement to allow each parent to benefit solely from the RESP funds they individually contributed post-separation, while the father argued the agreement should be enforced as written, requiring all RESP funds to be used first before apportioning remaining expenses.

The court found material changes in circumstances warranting variation of the agreement and ordered the parents to share undergraduate post-secondary expenses on a 60-40 basis (father-mother), with each parent free to use their own RESP funds as they see fit.

The court deferred determination of graduate degree funding to a future review.

A mother sought to vary an order placing her son in extended society care by obtaining increased and unsupervised access.

The child, who sustained an acquired brain injury resulting in physical and cognitive impairment, severe attention deficit, and behavioral challenges, had been made a Crown Ward in 2015.

The mother proposed expanded access for rehabilitation purposes, claiming the foster parents were not adequately addressing the child's physical rehabilitation needs.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the mother had not demonstrated a change in circumstances sufficient to warrant variation.

The mother continued to lack insight into the child's behavioral needs, focused exclusively on physical impairments while dismissing the child's own preferences, and had not demonstrated the ability to work cooperatively with the child's caregivers or recognize the risks posed by unsupervised access.

The Children's Aid Society of Algoma brought a motion seeking a determination under s.90(2)(b) and s.2(4) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA) as to whether a one-year-old child (L.A.) is a First Nation child and, if so, whether Batchewana First Nation should be added as a party respondent.

The child's mother stated the child was not Native and not eligible for band registration.

The father indicated he was pursuing Native Status for himself and had a paternal grandfather who was a member of Batchewana band.

The court initially found the child was not a First Nation child but reopened the motion for additional evidence.

The court ultimately found the child was a First Nation child under the CYFSA based on information demonstrating a connection to Batchewana band through the father's eligibility for membership and the paternal grandfather's band membership.

Batchewana First Nation band representative was added as a party respondent.

A mother sought leave to bring a status review application to regain custody of two children (ages 6 and 4) who were made Crown wards without access in November 2015 following a 12-day trial.

The children had been in continuous foster care for nearly four years.

The mother claimed significant personal changes including separation from the father, completion of parenting courses, psychological assessment showing insight, and improved independence.

However, the court found the mother's credibility was severely compromised by her submission of a fraudulent airline ticket to deny violating the no-access order, her continued involvement with the father despite claims of separation, and her pattern of deception consistent with her trial conduct.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, finding the mother had not established a prima facie case for relief and remained ungovernable.

The applicant brought a contempt motion against the respondent for alleged violations of a parenting order issued on July 31, 2017.

The court found the respondent guilty of one instance of contempt for deliberately overholding the child for one week beyond the ordered access period in August 2017.

The court rejected the applicant's allegations of further contempt, finding that the respondent's subsequent conduct either complied with the order or involved ambiguities in the order's interpretation that did not constitute clear violations.

The court imposed a penalty of a $500 charitable donation rather than a monetary fine or imprisonment.

An ex parte application by the Children's Aid Society of Brant for a warrant to apprehend two young children under section 40(2) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Society had involvement with the mother for approximately one year due to concerns regarding prenatal care, physical abuse, inadequate housing, and the mother's lack of cooperation with the Society.

The Justice of the Peace denied the warrant, finding that the affidavit failed to address why less restrictive alternatives, particularly placement with the respective grandmothers who had been involved in the children's care, were not available or adequate.

A summary judgment motion brought by the Catholic Children's Aid Society seeking statutory findings that four children were in need of protection and orders making three children crown wards with no access for adoption purposes, and one child a crown ward with access at the society's discretion.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing there were triable issues regarding her positive changes and ability to parent.

The court found overwhelming evidence of need for protection based on the mother's history of inadequate supervision, failure to follow through with services for children with special needs, exposure to domestic violence, and inability to manage children's behaviour even during supervised access visits.

The court granted the society's motion, finding no genuine issue requiring trial.

The applicant (mother) was found guilty of contempt of court for breaching paragraphs 14, 15, 25, and 26 of a September 29, 2015 court order.

Specifically, she failed to advise the respondent (father) of the time and location of a blood test for the child and arranged for the child to be seen by various doctors on six occasions without notifying the father in advance.

At the sentencing hearing, the mother apologized and stated she acted thoughtlessly and out of love for her son.

The court imposed a sentence focused on deterrence and behavioral change rather than financial penalties, given the mother's limited means and the fact that custody had already been transferred to the father as a consequence of her conduct.

A child protection trial under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act concerning a four-year-old child with Down's syndrome.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society sought a finding that the child was in need of protection and a Crown wardship order without access for adoption purposes.

The mother opposed the application and sought dismissal or, alternatively, return of the child to her care without supervision.

The court found the child in need of protection due to the mother's failure to adequately care for and supervise the child, including her resistance to accepting the child's Down's syndrome diagnosis, her failure to cooperate with service providers, her inappropriate expectations of the child, and her pattern of suspending and resuming access to the child.

The court made a Crown wardship order without access.

This is a costs endorsement following a three-day family law trial in which the applicant (mother) was awarded sole custody of the parties' children with a defined access schedule, imputed income was attributed to the respondent (father), and he was ordered to pay ongoing child support and retroactive child support of $29,727.

The court awarded the mother's costs claim of $4,520.50, finding her to be the completely successful party and the father's conduct to be unreasonable due to incomplete and late financial disclosure and failure to disclose assets.

A temporary care and custody hearing under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Children's Aid Society sought to place two young children in its care with discretionary parental access.

The parents sought return of the children subject to supervision.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children faced risk of harm based on unsanitary home conditions, developmental delays, inadequate stimulation, and drug trafficking activities.

However, the court determined the children could be adequately protected through strict terms and conditions of supervision, making the least disruptive placement with the parents subject to comprehensive supervision orders.

A costs decision following a six-day family law trial concerning custody and access arrangements for a child.

The mother sought costs of $55,234.87 on a full recovery basis, arguing she was significantly more successful on the key issues and made reasonable settlement offers.

The father, a self-represented lawyer, argued success was divided and that his litigation conduct was reasonable.

The court found the mother was more successful on the primary issues (sole custody versus parallel parenting, and access schedule) but reduced her costs award due to her failure to serve a formal offer to settle.

The court awarded costs of $30,000 to the mother.

Motion to change child support brought by the custodial parent seeking retroactive increase in support from January 1, 2009.

The payor parent lost employment in October 2012 and sought reduction in support.

The court declined to order retroactive support for 2009-2011 based on the four-factor test from D.B.S. v. S.R.G., finding no blameworthy conduct and risk of hardship.

However, the court granted retroactive increase effective July 1, 2012 based on the payor's income at that time.

Following job loss, the court imputed income of $32,000 to the payor rather than accepting either party's position, finding the payor was intentionally underemployed and well-educated with good employment prospects.

This is a costs endorsement following a summary judgment motion in a family law matter.

The applicant was successful in obtaining custody of four children, restricted and supervised access, a restraining order, and imputed income for the respondent.

The respondent's motion for shared custody and other relief was dismissed.

The court awarded costs to the successful applicant on a near-full recovery basis, considering the respondent's vexatious, manipulative, and harassing conduct throughout the proceedings, which significantly increased the applicant's legal fees.

This is a child protection trial concerning three children (K.M.1, A.M.1, and M.M.) who were apprehended in March 2008 due to neglect and inadequate supervision.

The mother, L.M., had a history of transience, poor home conditions, truancy issues with her older children, and inability to meet the special needs of her younger children.

The maternal grandmother, B.D.1, sought placement of the children with her.

The court found the children were in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act and made them Crown wards, rejecting all family-based plans due to the mother's deep-seated personality issues, the grandmother's health limitations and credibility concerns, and the inadequacy of the proposed plans to meet the children's high needs.