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 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 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.

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.

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.