Paula L. Bateman

This motion addressed whether a final order concerning child parenting and jurisdiction should be set aside due to lack of notice to the paternal grandmother, who had de facto care and control of the child in India.

The court set aside the parenting-related provisions of the final order, finding that the paternal grandmother, as a person with care and control, should have been named as a party and received notice.

However, the court affirmed Ontario's jurisdiction over the parenting dispute, determining the child's habitual residence remained in Ontario at the commencement of the original application and that Ontario was the more appropriate forum under the "balance of convenience" test, despite the child residing in India.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated October 3, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $3,000 to the responding party.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking to have the parties' child returned to Oman.

The court previously directed a trial of the jurisdictional issue and requested submissions on whether the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) should be appointed.

The applicant mother requested the OCL's appointment, which the father opposed due to urgency and the impending trial date.

The court found that the father had not proceeded with urgency and that the complexity of the materials warranted a trial rather than a motion.

The court ordered the appointment of the OCL to ensure the child's best interests were advanced and adjourned the scheduled trial pending the OCL's decision.

The parties were engaged in a complex international custody dispute over their child, with the father seeking the child's return to Oman and the mother seeking to remain in Ontario.

The parties filed over 4,000 pages of materials, including conflicting expert reports on Omani law and disputed allegations of domestic violence.

The court declined to determine the jurisdictional issues on a paper record, finding that the significant credibility issues and factual disputes required viva voce evidence.

The court directed a trial of an issue to determine jurisdiction and related matters.

The respondent father brought a motion to vary a temporary parenting order to allow for unsupervised, expanded parenting time.

The applicant mother opposed, citing a history of severe family violence and the father's prior criminal convictions.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) recommended a stepped-up supervised parenting plan, which the father rejected.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding no compelling circumstances to alter the status quo or bypass the OCL's recommendations, and emphasized the need to protect the children's safety and well-being.

The applicant sought an interim restraining order against the respondent, citing past abuse, criminal convictions for assault and threats, and continued controlling behaviour since separation.

The respondent brought a cross-motion for unsupervised access and sought to adjourn the applicant's motion.

The court granted an interim restraining order against the respondent regarding communication, contact, and proximity to the applicant, finding a legitimate basis for her fear based on his past conduct and controlling actions post-separation.

However, the court refused to grant a restraining order in relation to the children, finding no cogent evidence of ongoing risk to them, especially given supervised access.

The respondent's cross-motion for unsupervised access was not addressed, and his request for adjournment was denied.

The applicant brought a motion to change a child support order dated November 22, 2000, seeking to reduce arrears, terminate support, and adjust section 7 expenses.

The respondent opposed the motion and sought costs.

The court found a material change in circumstances but dismissed the applicant's request for retroactive income reassessment from 2017.

The court credited the applicant $6,000 for direct and in-kind payments, terminated monthly child support as of December 31, 2019, and ordered the applicant to pay a proportionate share of certain section 7 expenses.

Interest was reduced from 7% to 3.52% annually.

In a final decision following a family law trial, the court determined the ongoing calculation of child support.

The applicant sought to impute income to the respondent for a period of unemployment.

The court held that a material change in circumstances was not required to adjust support because no final order had been made.

The court declined to impute income, finding the respondent was not intentionally underemployed and had conducted an extensive job search.

Ongoing support was set based on the respondent's new employment income.

This is a family law case concerning the final determination of custody, access, and financial issues for two children, Sierra and Ethan, following a ten-day trial and a review of interim orders.

The court addressed ongoing parental conflict, specific incidents involving the children and extended family, and the children's academic progress and relationships with each parent.

The judge made final orders for sole custody of Sierra to the Applicant and sole custody of Ethan to the Respondent, with adjusted access schedules and continued reunification counselling.

The court also provided directions for resolving outstanding financial issues and declined to revisit previous factual findings.

This case involved a motion to change a joint custody order for two children (ages 13 and 11) due to severe parental conflict.

The court found a material change in circumstances, concluding that joint custody was no longer appropriate.

Interim sole custody of the elder child (Sierra) was awarded to the mother (Marcia), with specific access for the father (Nelson) and reunification therapy.

Interim sole custody of the younger child (Ethan) was awarded to the father (Nelson), with a week-about access schedule for the mother.

The decision also addressed retroactive and ongoing child support, Section 7 expenses, and dismissed a contempt motion against the mother, while criticizing both parents and the school board for their conduct.

In a post‑separation parenting dispute involving joint custody, the applicant sought to change the children’s school to one located within her residential catchment area and requested clarification of a right‑of‑first‑refusal clause in an earlier custody order.

The respondent opposed the school change and sought additional relief including maintaining the current school placement, appointment of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, disclosure of the Children’s Aid Society file, and a defined summer access schedule.

The court held that the moving party failed to demonstrate that changing schools would be in the children’s best interests, emphasizing the importance of stability where the children were performing well and had attended the same school for several years.

The court ordered that the children remain at their current school, set specific summer parenting time, directed disclosure of CAS records, and appointed the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.

Following prior proceedings in a family law matter, the court addressed costs entitlement and quantum.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs of $15,325.19 supported only by counsel’s ledger statement.

The court noted that the request included preparation for attendance at a case conference despite no costs order having been made at that conference.

In the circumstances, the court reduced the requested amount and ordered a lump-sum costs award.

A former spouse brought a motion to change a final divorce order seeking to reduce or eliminate spousal support following retirement and serious health issues.

The court found that retirement and deteriorating health constituted a material change in circumstances.

In assessing support, the court considered whether pension income previously equalized at property division could still be relied upon for spousal support and reviewed authorities on “double‑dipping.” The court concluded that the recipient had received appropriate equalization and owned significant assets, and therefore support should not continue indefinitely based on the pension income.

The support obligation was gradually reduced over several months and terminated as of March 1, 2015.

The respondent father brought a motion to implement recommendations of a report from the Office of the Children's Lawyer regarding custody and access arrangements.

The applicant mother disputed the recommendations and filed a cross-motion.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding the mother was the successful party.

The mother sought costs of $2,726.05, while the father sought $9,715.00 or alternatively no costs order.

The court awarded costs to the mother in the amount of $2,900.00 inclusive of disbursements and taxes, finding the mother was the successful party on the primary issue and more successful on the secondary issue regarding summer access.

The respondent father brought a motion to vary a temporary custody and access order made on November 13, 2012, seeking to implement recommendations from an Office of the Children's Lawyer report dated June 19, 2013.

The father sought joint custody with expanded access.

The applicant mother opposed the motion, disputing factual findings in the report and arguing that joint custody was not workable given the parties' inability to communicate and cooperate.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the father failed to establish a material change in circumstances sufficient to warrant variation of the temporary order.

The court held that the Office of the Children's Lawyer report, while containing useful observations, did not provide an adequate basis for implementing joint custody or significantly expanded access at the interim stage, particularly given the parties' ongoing hostility and lack of meaningful communication.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a final consent order, seeking to terminate spousal support and reduce child support on the basis of his early retirement at age 65.

The court found the father lacked credibility, having deliberately chosen to retire early to avoid his support obligations while secretly continuing part-time employment.

The court held that the voluntary early retirement did not constitute a material change in circumstances.

The father's income was imputed at his pre-retirement level, and his motions to terminate spousal support, reduce life insurance, and eliminate health benefits were dismissed.

The court also determined the parties' proportionate shares for the children's section 7 post-secondary expenses.