Paul J. Henderson

In a custody and access proceeding, the father brought a motion to transfer the case from London to Brampton after relocating with the children.

The court considered whether the “preponderance of convenience” under s. 21.11(3) of the Courts of Justice Act favoured transferring the matter from the Family Court jurisdiction in London to a court without Family Court jurisdiction.

Although the children had been living with the father in the Toronto area, the court held the application was properly commenced in London due to the ongoing child protection context and the children’s conditional residence tied to the London court’s jurisdiction.

The moving party failed to demonstrate that convenience strongly favoured transfer.

Access to justice concerns, including the respondent’s financial limitations and Legal Aid representation, and the need for timely resolution in the children’s best interests weighed against transfer.

Following a family law trial concerning child support and the imputation of income, the court determined costs.

The applicant, having been more successful at trial, was presumptively entitled to costs under Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules.

The court considered the factors under Rule 24(11), including the importance of the child support issue, the modest complexity arising from the imputation of income, the reasonableness of counsel’s rates, and the time spent on the matter.

The court also considered settlement offers made by the parties.

Costs were awarded to the applicant in the amount of $12,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

In a custody dispute following separation, both parents sought sole custody of two children, while the mother alternatively sought joint custody and equal time based on an Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL) report recommending shared parenting.

The court assessed the best interests of the children under s. 16 of the Divorce Act and considered the significant caregiving role of the paternal grandmother, the parents’ inability to communicate effectively, and the reliability of the OCL report.

The court found the report carried limited weight due to methodological concerns, including joint interviews of the children and failure to interview key collateral contacts.

Given the long-standing status quo in which the children resided primarily with the father and paternal grandmother, and the instability that a major change would cause, the court concluded that sole custody with the father best served the children’s interests.

The mother was granted liberal and structured access and child support obligations were suspended due to her financial circumstances.

The applicant brought a motion to change a prior child support order to adjust child support and special or extraordinary expenses under the Child Support Guidelines.

The respondent had failed to provide annual income disclosure as required by the prior order, prompting the application.

The court recalculated child support for successive periods based on the respondent’s reported income and adjusted the parties’ proportionate shares of section 7 expenses for daycare, camp, and dental costs.

The court rejected the respondent’s argument that a job loss constituted a material change in circumstances because he had received a substantial severance package.

The order was varied to reduce the ongoing child support amount and adjust the monthly section 7 contribution, with arrears and costs ordered payable to the applicant.

Following competing family law motions, the court requested submissions on costs.

The applicant argued that she had been more successful and sought costs pursuant to Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules.

The respondent submitted that the result reflected mixed success and that no costs order should be made.

The court found that both parties achieved partial success on the issues, including preservation orders and limited access to funds, and that neither party could be said to have prevailed overall.

Accordingly, the court declined to award costs.

The responding party brought a motion seeking temporary child support, contribution to special expenses under s. 7 of the Ontario Child Support Guidelines, and temporary spousal support.

The court considered whether income should be imputed to the payor under s. 19(1) of the Guidelines given evidence of assets, inconsistent financial disclosure, and claimed business downturn.

The court declined to impute the higher income sought but imputed income of $72,000 based on the payor’s budget, asset holdings, and limited financial disclosure.

Temporary child support, spousal support, and contribution to special expenses were ordered retroactive to October 1, 2012.

In a family law proceeding following separation, both parties brought motions regarding access to and preservation of joint investment assets pending resolution of property and support issues.

The applicant sought exclusive monthly withdrawals from a joint investment account and preservation of the respondent’s assets, while the respondent sought division of the account or equal access to it.

The court declined to divide the account at this stage but ordered interim monthly withdrawals from the joint account of $6,500 to the applicant and $3,000 to the respondent.

The respondent was also permitted to withdraw $200,000 to address outstanding debts, credited against his eventual share.

A preservation order was granted over the parties’ assets to maintain the financial status quo pending further proceedings.

A father sought access to his child while the mother held custody under an existing consent order.

The court assessed the request under s. 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act, focusing on the child’s best interests and the applicant’s ability to act as a parent, including consideration of past violence.

Evidence showed the applicant had an extensive criminal record involving violence, ongoing substance abuse issues, instability in housing and employment, and no contact with the child since birth.

The court also found credible evidence that the respondent remained fearful and that access could be used to continue intimidation.

The court concluded that access would not be in the child’s best interests and extended an existing restraining order to include the child.

The applicant sought an uncontested divorce, but the respondent requested an order compelling him to maintain her under his extended health and dental benefits.

The parties had a separation agreement containing a mutual release of spousal support, even in the event of catastrophic health changes.

The court applied the Miglin framework and found that the respondent's subsequent severe health issues (diabetes, heart attack, motor vehicle accident) constituted a significant departure from what was reasonably anticipated.

Balancing the need to address hardship with the goal of finality, the court stayed the divorce application for one year, requiring the applicant to maintain the respondent's health coverage during that time.