Family and Matrimonial Law - ONCJ

This decision addresses a motion by the respondent mother seeking enforcement of a costs order against the applicant father as support enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) under the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act.

The court analyzed whether legal costs awarded or consented to in family proceedings can be designated as support enforceable by FRO, focusing on whether the costs arose "in relation to the issue of support or maintenance" as required by the statute.

The court found that the underlying trial primarily concerned parenting issues, with minimal focus on child support, and that the mother failed to provide evidence that the legal costs related to support.

Consequently, the motion to enforce costs as support was dismissed, though the mother was permitted to bring an alternative enforcement motion under Rule 8 of the Family Law Rules.

This decision concerns a child protection application under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, involving serious sexual offence charges against the father, Dr. RW, unrelated to his own children but occurring in the family home.

The Ontario Court of Justice considered the admissibility and reliability of evidence from police and society workers, rejecting double hearsay and parental testimony about children's views.

The court emphasized the paramountcy of children's best interests and protection, finding reasonable grounds to believe the children would be at risk if placed in joint parental care.

The interim order places the children with the mother under society supervision and restricts the father's access to supervised visits, denying unsupervised access or cohabitation due to the risk of sexual and emotional harm.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a 2012 parenting order, seeking "week-about" parenting time for his 9-year-old son.

The respondent mother opposed this, requesting supervised access and programs for the father.

The court considered the child's best interests under the Children's Law Reform Act, including the child's expressed wishes for more time with his father.

However, the court found the father's relationship with the child to be "excessive" and "self-centered," concluding that further increasing parenting time beyond the existing interim order would not be in the child's best interests.

The father's motion for increased parenting time was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

The mother brought a motion to change a custody and access order, seeking custody of the child for three months to attend reintegration therapy, with the expectation of achieving joint custody thereafter.

The mother also sought to change the child support order.

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

The child was represented by the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The court found no material change in circumstances since the prior order.

The child's views and preferences remained consistent—she did not wish contact with her mother or to attend therapy.

The mother failed to demonstrate insight into her role in the estrangement and took no meaningful steps to reconcile.

The court dismissed both the mother's motion and the father's cross-motion for increased child support based on imputed income.

The mother was prohibited from bringing further motions without leave of the court.

A custody and access trial concerning a two-year-old child.

The mother sought sole custody with limited access for the father (8 hours on Saturdays for at least 8 months).

The father sought joint custody with alternate weekend access from Friday evening to Monday morning, plus mid-week access.

The court found that joint custody was not appropriate due to the parties' inability to communicate effectively.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother but significantly expanded the father's access beyond what the mother proposed, finding that the mother had been unnecessarily restrictive.

The court phased in overnight access over a short period, ultimately ordering alternate weekend access from Friday after day care to Monday morning, with mid-week access to be determined at a further hearing.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a child support order dated February 10, 2009, seeking retroactive adjustment for underpayment during 2012-2014 and claiming the respondent father had intentionally become unemployed.

The respondent father sought to reduce child support to zero due to job loss in February 2014.

The court found a material change in circumstances and determined that the father was intentionally underemployed and should have sought work in his field.

The court retroactively adjusted child support based on actual and imputed income for 2013-2015, imputed income of $50,000 going forward, and established an arrears payment plan.

The mother sought an order permitting her to obtain a passport and government documents for the parties' 10-year-old child and to travel outside Canada for vacation purposes without the father's consent.

The father opposed the motion, arguing the mother was a flight risk and sought to sever his relationship with the child, particularly regarding travel to non-Hague Convention countries.

The court found the mother was not a flight risk, was strongly connected to Canada, and had no intention of removing the child to sever the father-child relationship.

The court granted the mother's request with notice requirements to the father.

Unmarried parents dispute custody and access of their child.

The father seeks joint custody with equal week-about sharing of care and control.

The mother seeks sole custody with biweekly access to the father.

The court finds that the father's history of emotional abuse, controlling behaviour, sexual assault, and inability to communicate effectively with the mother render him unsuitable for joint custody.

The mother is found to be the child's primary caregiver throughout the child's life and better positioned to serve the child's best interests.

The court awards sole custody to the mother with biweekly access to the father.

A temporary care and custody motion under the Child and Family Services Act concerning two children (ages 11 and 9) apprehended from their mother's care due to concerns regarding the mother's mental health crisis, inadequate supervision, poor home conditions, and insufficient food.

The mother was hospitalized involuntarily for exhibiting paranoid and delusional behavior.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children would suffer harm if returned to either parent's immediate care.

The court ordered the children remain in society care with graduated access to the mother, with an expectation of return to maternal care by September 3, 2015, contingent upon the mother's continued mental health stability and compliance with conditions.

The father's role remained uncertain pending further investigation.

Motion to vary a custody and access order made on January 11, 2013, whereby custody of two minor daughters was awarded to the mother with biweekly and summer access to the father.

The father brought a motion to vary seeking to reverse the order and obtain custody, alleging material change in circumstances based on the mother's alleged non-compliance with 21 conditions of the original order.

The mother opposed the motion and denied the allegations.

The court found that while there were some instances of non-compliance, they did not constitute a material change in circumstances sufficient to warrant variation of the order.

The court dismissed the motion and imposed restrictions on future proceedings to prevent abuse of the judicial system.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a 2011 custody and access order, seeking unsupervised access to the parties' child with Autism Spectrum Disorder and termination of a restraining order.

The father had previously demonstrated severe mental illness, disturbing behaviour, and posed risks to the family's safety.

Although the father initially provided evidence of mental health stabilization and supervised access was gradually permitted, he subsequently resumed exhibiting disturbing and threatening behaviour, including sending abusive emails to the mother, the child's older sibling, counsel for the child, and the clinical assistant.

The court found the father failed to meet the threshold requirement of demonstrating a material change in circumstances and dismissed the motion, restoring the original no-access and restraining orders.

A kinship care provider sought to be added as a party respondent to a child protection proceeding and requested disclosure of a parenting capacity assessment.

The child, diagnosed with hydrocephalus, had been placed in the kinship care provider's home since 12 days old.

The Society and biological parents had reached a settlement agreement to return the child to parental care with supervision.

The court determined that kinship care placements are akin to foster care placements and that the kinship care provider, having continuously cared for the child, was entitled to enhanced participation rights under the Child and Family Services Act.

Rather than adding the provider as a full party, the court granted enhanced participation rights including disclosure of key documents and participation in settlement conferences.

A custody dispute between two parents following their separation in April 2013.

The applicant sought custody of two biological children, while the respondent sought custody of all four children (including two older children from her previous relationship).

The court found that the applicant had engaged in a pattern of controlling, abusive, and physically violent behavior toward the respondent and the children, including grabbing them by the throat and neck.

The respondent was awarded sole custody of both children, with the applicant granted bi-weekly access.

The court rejected the clinical investigator's recommendation for shared care, finding that such an arrangement would perpetuate the struggle for control and be contrary to the children's best interests.

A default hearing brought by the Director of the Family Responsibility Office seeking enforcement of arrears of child and spousal support totaling $199,427 as of July 30, 2014.

The payor claimed inability to pay due to depression following his 2008 separation and argued for a motion to change the support order.

The court found the payor's evidence regarding his financial circumstances and the source of substantial lump sum payments ($49,600 and $5,000) made under court order to be entirely lacking in credibility.

The court concluded the payor had demonstrated access to significant funds and was deliberately obfuscating his financial situation.

The court ordered the payor to pay $50,000 within 21 days, annual payments of $50,000 until arrears were satisfied, and ongoing monthly support of $3,644, with imprisonment as the consequence for default.

A family law trial concerning custody and access of two children following a separation marked by domestic violence allegations.

The father sought supervised access followed by unsupervised access to his children, whom he had not seen since June 2009.

The mother opposed any access and sought sole custody, the ability to obtain government documentation for the children, and permission to travel outside Canada with them without the father's consent.

The court found the father had engaged in a pattern of abuse, control, and violence against the mother and children.

The court granted the mother sole custody and made a no-access order, finding that the children's safety, stability, and security outweighed any benefit of contact with the father.

The court also granted the mother's requests regarding documentation and travel.

An application by a seventeen-year-old transgender youth to change her name from her birth name to a female name.

The applicant sought an order dispensing with parental consent under the Change of Name Act, arguing that her mother did not have lawful custody of her.

The court found that the applicant's mother did not exercise physical care or control, nor did she make decisions regarding the applicant's residence, education, or medical care.

The court determined that no person had lawful custody of the applicant for purposes of the Change of Name Act, and therefore no parental consent was required.

A child protection society sought an order excluding a 14-year-old child from attending all future court hearings in child protection proceedings, arguing that her presence would cause emotional harm.

The child, represented by independent counsel, opposed the motion and expressed her wish to attend all court appearances.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the child had experienced nightmares and emotional distress, the evidence did not establish that court attendance itself would cause emotional harm.

The distress appeared linked to other factors, including anxiety about a proposed treatment placement in the United States.

The court established a detailed protocol to manage the child's court attendance and minimize exposure to conflict among the adults involved in the case.

The complainant sought a peace bond against the respondents alleging threats and property damage.

The court found that while the respondents engaged in inconsiderate conduct, including bulldozing and spray painting the lawn of the matrimonial home, such actions did not constitute grounds for a peace bond.

The court determined that the complainant failed to establish reasonable grounds for fear of personal injury or property damage on the balance of probabilities.

The application was dismissed.

A motion to change a custody order in a family law matter involving a ten-year-old child.

The applicant sought to change the existing joint custody arrangement (with primary residence to the respondent) to sole custody of himself.

The child had been placed in temporary sole custody of the applicant in May 2011 but ran away to her mother's residence in July 2012.

The court found that the respondent had demonstrated an inability to support the child's relationship with the applicant and had engaged in parental alienation despite therapeutic interventions.

The court granted sole custody to the applicant with no access to the respondent, finding this to be in the child's best interests.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking findings that a child was in need of protection and requesting placement with the father under supervision.

The father brought a concurrent motion for custody.

The mother opposed both motions.

The court found that the child suffered emotional harm due to the mother's pattern of alienating the child from the father, withholding access contrary to court orders, coaching the child to make false abuse allegations, and failing to address the child's medical and developmental needs.

The court granted both motions, placing the child in the sole custody of the father with specified access to the mother, and terminated the father's child support obligation.