Paula Ferré

The applicant moved to set aside a final order that terminated her spousal support, claiming she had no notice of the respondent's motion to change.

The court found that the respondent had obtained an order for substituted service and had served the applicant via her daughter and Facebook Messenger.

The court concluded that the applicant was either ignoring the proceedings or willfully blind to them.

Applying the Mountain View Farms factors, the court held that the applicant failed to provide a plausible explanation for her default and did not establish an arguable case on the merits, as she had significant assets and the support had been paid for 19 years.

The motion to set aside the order was dismissed.

Following a family law trial where the applicant was largely successful, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The applicant sought $43,401.81, while the respondent argued for a lower amount, claiming divided success.

The court found the applicant was successful on most significant claims and noted the respondent's failure to comply with disclosure obligations and selective production of evidence.

The court awarded the applicant $38,000 in costs, representing an amount enhanced from partial indemnity but less than substantial indemnity.

This endorsement addresses cross-motions for temporary orders in a family law dispute following a marriage of 11 years and separation.

The Applicant sought orders regarding child support, telephone access, passport renewal, and appraisal of the matrimonial home.

The Respondent sought extended summer access, daily telephone access, an order for the child to remain in her current school, production of documents, and spousal support.

The court made strong credibility findings against the self-represented Respondent, noting his unfounded allegations and uncooperative conduct.

The Applicant was granted temporary sole custody, decision-making power for the child's school, and the ability to renew the child's passport.

The Respondent's telephone access was terminated due to abuse.

Child support was varied based on updated income.

The Respondent's motions were largely dismissed, and he was ordered to have the matrimonial home appraised and to pay costs to the Applicant due to his unreasonable positions.

The respondent mother brought a motion to suspend the applicant father's parenting time pending a Family and Children's Services (FACS) investigation into allegations that the father's step-son inappropriately touched the parties' child.

The court noted that both parents had inappropriately obtained taped statements from the child, resulting in contradictory accounts.

The court found the allegations serious but concluded it was not necessary to deny the father contact with the children.

The court ordered the resumption of the existing parenting schedule with conditions, including that the child not share a bedroom and that the parties engage in counselling.

The applicant father brought a Hague Convention application seeking the return of the parties' child to Colorado.

The mother had travelled to Ontario with the child for a short visit but subsequently decided to remain.

The court found that the child was habitually resident in Colorado and wrongfully retained in Ontario.

However, the application was dismissed because the father's prolonged silence and failure to contact the child for several months constituted subsequent acquiescence to the retention under Article 13 of the Convention.

The applicant child protection agency brought a summary judgment motion seeking a Crown wardship order without access for the purpose of adoption.

The respondents each filed plans of care proposing that the child be placed in their respective care under supervision.

The court found overwhelming evidence of the mother’s long-standing inability to parent, including prior Crown wardship orders for other children and expert evidence regarding cognitive limitations.

The father’s proposed plan of care was also rejected due to significant mental health issues, criminal history, substance use, lack of cooperation with the agency, and failure to recognize the child’s developmental delays.

The court held that the respondents failed to raise any genuine issue requiring a trial and granted summary judgment making the child a Crown ward without access.