Pam MacEachern

The court considered an application by Misty Wilson to vary the spousal support terms of a 2018 separation agreement, seeking a retroactive and prospective increase and security for support.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the cessation of child support obligations and an increase in Dan Wilson’s income, but declined to order retroactive support before January 1, 2023, or require life insurance security.

Spousal support was increased to $1,000 per month effective January 1, 2023.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss openness applications filed by the mother (J.S.R.) and adult sister (H.S.R.) concerning two children, E. and R., who were in the Society's extended care and subsequently adopted.

The court considered the children's best interests, their consistent views against contact with the applicants, and the requirement for consent for children over 12 under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The motion was granted, dismissing the openness applications and ordering openness only according to the children's wishes as reflected in minutes signed by the Office of the Children's Lawyer and the Society.

This decision addresses the terms of an adjournment of a family law trial caused by the Applicant's counsel's unavailability due to health issues.

The Respondent sought orders for disclosure, costs thrown away, and a further advance on equalization.

The court ordered the Applicant to pay $11,300 in costs thrown away and a further $58,000 advance on equalization, finding the Applicant responsible for the adjournment despite no fault.

The court also issued an interim child support order on consent.

The Respondent sought leave to bring a motion alleging the Applicant committed various crimes and abused court process, seeking recognition as a victim of family violence, and other relief.

The court denied leave, finding the relief sought frivolous, vexatious, an abuse of process, and beyond the court's jurisdiction in a family law proceeding.

The court also noted the Respondent's history of non-compliance with disclosure orders and unpaid costs, and granted the Applicant leave to proceed with a motion to strike pleadings and a motion to declare the Respondent a vexatious litigant.

Costs were awarded to the Applicant.

This case involved a Binding Judicial Dispute Resolution (BJDR) to resolve long-standing family law issues concerning parenting decision-making, parenting time, and child support.

The court denied the respondent father's request for an adjournment, finding he had ample time to prepare.

The final orders granted the applicant mother sole decision-making authority for the child, established a detailed parenting schedule for regular, holiday, and summer periods, and permitted the mother to authorize international travel without the father's consent.

The respondent father was ordered to pay increased table child support retroactively from 2019 based on his increased income and to contribute to Section 7 expenses, including arrears, emphasizing the child's best interests and the need for certainty in co-parenting.

The respondent mother sought summary judgment for final orders regarding decision-making, parenting time, and travel for the children, and a restraining order against the applicant father.

The father, self-represented, opposed the motion but failed to file responding evidence.

The court granted the mother's motion for summary judgment on all parenting issues, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, given the father's hostile conduct, inability to prioritize the children's best interests over his fixation on the separation, and refusal to engage in supervised access.

The court ordered sole decision-making and primary residence to the mother, supervised parenting time for the father through a professional program, and authorized the mother to arrange travel and apply for passports without the father's consent.

The request for a restraining order was dismissed without prejudice due to it not being pleaded.

This was a final hearing on a Motion to Change the parenting and child support provisions of a 2017 Final Order.

The Applicant Mother sought changes to decision-making and primary residence, alleging parental alienation, while the Respondent Father sought child support.

The court determined that the provincial Children’s Law Reform Act and Family Law Act applied, not the Divorce Act, as no divorce had been granted.

The court found material changes in circumstances, including the Mother's relocation and the child's increased resistance to contact, justifying changes to parenting time.

Parenting time was made subject to the child's wishes, and the Mother was made solely responsible for transportation.

Retroactive child support was ordered from July 1, 2020, the date of formal notice, dismissing earlier claims due to lack of effective notice and the Father's non-disclosure of income.

The Mother was ordered to contribute to specific s.7 expenses and maintain life insurance.

The Applicant brought a motion seeking temporary child support, partition and sale of the matrimonial home, and disclosure.

The court had previously ordered the sale of the home.

This endorsement addresses the remaining issues: temporary child support, disposition of sale proceeds, and disclosure.

The court imputed an income of $50,000 per year to the Respondent for child support purposes, ordered retroactive child support to be paid from the Respondent's share of the home sale proceeds, and ordered a portion of the proceeds to be held in trust as security.

The Respondent was also ordered to provide extensive financial disclosure.

The court dismissed the Respondent's unpleaded claims for damages and spousal support.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion without notice seeking temporary care and sole decision-making authority for the child, alleging the child was in immediate danger in the respondent mother's care.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence of immediate danger and noting the applicant failed to provide full and frank disclosure.

The court also dismissed the underlying application because it was commenced in Ottawa, which was not the municipality where the child habitually resided, contrary to Rule 5 of the Family Law Rules.

The applicant sought full recovery costs of $15,735.25 for a motion regarding interim support, alleging bad faith by the respondent.

The respondent sought costs of $2,500, arguing the applicant's requests were excessive.

The court found the applicant was the successful party as she received higher interim support, but noted her relief sought was excessive and she failed to serve an offer to settle.

The respondent was criticized for delaying financial disclosure.

The court denied full indemnity costs, finding no bad faith, and awarded the applicant fixed costs of $4,000.

The applicant sought leave to bring an urgent, ex parte motion for interim orders regarding primary residence, sole decision-making, no parenting time for the respondent, and a restraining order.

The respondent was recently charged with breaching his terms of release related to serious incidents of violence against the applicant.

The court granted the restraining order and ordered no parenting time for the respondent to provide an additional layer of protection.

However, the court declined to make urgent orders regarding decision-making and primary residence, finding no immediate need as the child was already residing with the applicant.

A return date for the motion was set for early January 2022.

The applicant brought a motion seeking a finding of contempt against the respondent for breaching a Final Order regarding income disclosure, child support adjustments, and Section 7 expenses.

The court reviewed the high threshold for contempt findings, emphasizing it as a last resort.

While acknowledging some non-compliance, the court found that the respondent had largely remedied the disclosure issues by the time of the motion and that other issues were not suitable for contempt.

The court dismissed the contempt motion but issued detailed orders for both parties to provide outstanding income and expense disclosure and to attend mediation as per the original order.

The applicant father sought an urgent motion to stay a custody and parenting order pending an appeal to the Divisional Court.

The preliminary issue was whether the Superior Court of Justice retained jurisdiction to hear the stay motion after an appeal had been launched.

The court found that Rule 63.02(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, grants concurrent jurisdiction to both the trial court and the appeal court for such motions.

The respondent mother failed to demonstrate why the Superior Court should not exercise its concurrent jurisdiction.

Consequently, the court asserted jurisdiction and scheduled the applicant's motion for a stay.

The applicant father sought an urgent motion for interim access to the parties' two-year-old child.

The court, acting as Triage Judge, determined that the matter was not urgent, citing the father's prior inaction, the absence of a case conference, his incarceration history, and criminal convictions for domestic violence against the respondent in the child's presence.

The court also criticized both parties for filing excessive material for an administrative urgency request, exceeding the specified page limits.

The request for an urgent motion was dismissed.

The Applicant mother brought an urgent motion regarding timesharing for the parties' four children after the Respondent father refused to return them following March break, citing COVID-19 concerns, and then unexpectedly moved back to the Ottawa area, seeking to revert to an old timesharing schedule.

The court found the father in default of the mother's prior motion to change the final order and rejected his interpretation of the existing order regarding homeschooling during school closures.

The court granted temporary orders for the children to primarily reside with the mother during the regular school year, with the father having alternate weekend access, reflecting the status quo since September 2019.

The father was allowed time to file a response to the mother's motion to change.

The father brought an urgent motion seeking compliance with an existing access order, make-up time, police enforcement, and orders regarding social media.

The mother denied access due to COVID-19 safety concerns, alleging the father was not complying with public health directives.

The court, applying the Chief Justice's Notice regarding urgent matters during COVID-19, found urgency only on the narrow issue of whether the father's access should be temporarily varied due to the mother's allegations of risk.

The father's other requests were deemed not urgent.

The court directed an urgent motion hearing on the access variation issue and ordered both parties to review Ribeiro v. Wright.

The applicant sought to strike the respondent's pleadings or, alternatively, require security for costs, primarily due to the respondent's failure to pay a $22,900 cost order.

The court found the respondent's non-payment to be willful and egregious, evidenced by extensive discretionary travel.

The court struck the respondent's pleadings but allowed for reinstatement upon payment of $9,000 to the applicant by certified cheque, cash, or bank draft by March 13, 2020.

Additionally, interim spousal support payable to the respondent was stayed pending trial.

The motion for security for costs was denied as some of the respondent's claims were not entirely devoid of merit.

The respondent, Mr. Zelaya, sought to proceed with an uncontested motion to change an existing child support order, aiming to terminate child support for the youngest child and fix arrears.

The applicant, Ms. Zelaya, sought leave to file her late response and an adjournment to a case conference.

The court granted Ms. Zelaya's requests, finding her reasons for delay reasonable and Mr. Zelaya's motion material deficient and an attempt to re-litigate previously decided issues.

The court declined Mr. Zelaya's request to proceed uncontested and to grant interim orders, adjourning the matter to a case conference to define the issues.

The applicant sought the return of a child, access, and related relief after the respondent relocated without notice and ceased access.

The court adjourned the relocation issue but granted interim interim access to the applicant, noting the respondent's failure to file materials or attend court despite multiple adjournments and warnings.

The respondent was ordered to provide information about the child's school and her municipality of residence, as well as medical records supporting her non-attendance.

The parties executed Minutes of Settlement to resolve parenting and child support issues through mediation/arbitration.

The respondent subsequently refused to pay the arbitration retainer or attend mandatory domestic violence and power imbalance screening, arguing the arbitration agreement was invalid.

The applicant brought a motion to compel the respondent to proceed.

The court granted the motion, finding the respondent was bound by the Minutes of Settlement to take the necessary steps to implement the agreement, including attending the required screening.