Paul Joseph Mongenais

The Applicants (grandparents) brought a motion to enforce an interim contact order for their two grandchildren, alleging the Respondent mother had failed to comply with the previous order.

The court denied the Respondent's adjournment request, deeming it a delay tactic contrary to the children's best interests.

The court found the Respondent was actively preventing contact and influencing the children against their grandparents.

The motion for enforcement was granted, with the court ordering a new, detailed contact schedule, involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer, and a police enforcement clause as a last resort.

Costs were awarded to the Applicants.

The appellant mother sought costs against the Children's Aid Society of Toronto (CAS) for a second appeal to the Superior Court of Justice, which became moot after the CAS withdrew its protection application in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The case involved conflicting interim orders between the two courts and concerns about the CAS's conduct in investigation and presentation of its case, including failing to meet with the mother and withholding relevant information from the OCJ.

The court found the CAS acted unfairly and unreasonably, justifying a costs award, despite the general exception for government agencies in child protection cases.

This decision addresses a motion for costs brought by the mother against the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CAS) in a child protection proceeding.

The mother sought full recovery costs of $12,577, alleging the CAS acted unfairly and unreasonably, including late service of materials, mistaken pleadings, and untimely conduct.

The CAS argued against costs, citing its statutory obligations and the specific subrule for child protection cases.

The court reviewed principles for awarding costs against child protection agencies, emphasizing that while not immune, they should not be penalized for carrying out their mandate unless their conduct is patently unfair and indefensible.

The court found the CAS acted reasonably and thoroughly, dismissing the mother's claim for costs.

The applicant mother and respondent father brought cross-motions for temporary orders concerning parenting time and procedural matters for their child.

The mother sought increased unsupervised access and disclosure, while the father sought continued supervised access and various conditions, including drug testing.

The court found the mother had made significant progress in overcoming substance abuse and granted her unsupervised parenting time, including extended periods, while denying most of the father's requests for continued supervision and future conditions.

The court emphasized the need to move towards normalization of parenting time and criticized the prolonged litigation.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's dismissal of her application for retroactive spousal support covering a four and a half year period from June 30, 2010 to December 31, 2014.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by not accounting for time spent in mediation when considering delay, by failing to address compensatory support, and by not providing reasons for departing from the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no error in the exercise of discretion regarding retroactive support, which carries no presumptive right.

This appeal concerns a child relocation motion where the mother sought to move her five-year-old son from Cochrane, Ontario to Thunder Bay.

The parties had joint and shared custody following their separation in November 2015.

The motion judge dismissed the mother's relocation motion, finding that the child would lose meaningful contact with his father and that the mother's financial difficulties were self-imposed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in principle by failing to recognize the mother as the primary caregiver and by making a palpable and overriding error in concluding that the mother's financial difficulties were self-imposed.

The court found a valid and compelling parenting-based reason for the move, as it was necessary to enable the primary caregiver to remain financially viable while providing care for the child.

The mother brought a motion seeking to relocate the parties' four-year-old child from Cochrane to Thunder Bay to pursue employment as a special constable.

The parties had a joint and shared custody arrangement.

The court applied the factors from Berry v. Berry for mobility cases involving two custodial parents.

The court found that the mother's financial difficulties were somewhat self-imposed and that she had not exhausted her search for employment in Cochrane.

The court concluded that the economic benefits of the move did not outweigh the significant and permanent disruption to the child's relationship with the father.

The motion to relocate the child was dismissed.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an interim support order requiring payment of child and spousal support.

The parties had previously executed a separation agreement that provided for child support and contained a spousal support waiver, and the responding party had not pleaded a claim to set aside that agreement.

The court held that it was improper to grant interim relief contrary to the agreement when no pleading challenged its validity, as parties must know the case they must meet.

The court also found potential legal error where the motions judge relied on the Family Law Act rather than the Divorce Act in a divorce proceeding.

Given these concerns and conflicting case law on interim support orders where a separation agreement exists, leave to appeal was granted and the interim order was stayed.

The appellant mother appealed a finding of contempt for failing to comply with an access order regarding the parties' daughter.

The mother argued that the child refused to attend access visits and that she had done her best to encourage attendance.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the mother had effectively abdicated her parental authority by leaving the decision to the child and failing to take concrete measures beyond mere encouragement.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a $4,000 costs order made in a family law proceeding.

The motion was brought before a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court.

The panel dismissed the motion, holding that motions for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court must be brought before a single judge, not a panel of three judges.

This rule applies regardless of whether the appeal is from an interlocutory order, a costs order, or an administrative tribunal.

On a motion arising from a motion to change a final family order, the applicant sought broad financial disclosure from the respondent and from a non-party alleged to be the respondent’s common law spouse.

The court granted, on consent, production of verification for certain categories of the respondent’s expenses, but refused to compel the non-party to disclose additional personal, corporate, and tax documents.

Applying the non-party production factors and emphasizing proportionality, privacy, and the availability of other evidence through questioning, the court held the applicant had not shown it would be unfair to proceed without the requested disclosure.

The balance of the motion was dismissed.

On a contempt motion arising from repeated denial of child access, the court considered whether a custodial parent may rely on a 12-year-old child's refusal to attend visits with the access parent.

Applying the contempt test, the court held that an earlier order lacked the clarity required for contempt, but a later order directing a specific drop-off date, time, and location was clear and unequivocal.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the mother deliberately and wilfully failed to comply by leaving the access decision to the child rather than exercising normal parental authority.

A finding of contempt was made, with sanction to be determined later.

In a high-conflict parenting dispute, the respondent father brought a contempt motion alleging the mother failed to comply with an interim access order and sought additional interim relief including summer parenting time.

The court held that contempt requires strict compliance with procedural requirements, including specific allegations tied to an existing order.

Because the alleged breach related to informal arrangements rather than the precise terms of the operative order, the contempt motion was dismissed.

The court nevertheless addressed interim parenting issues, directing that the mother provide a schedule allowing three weeks of summer access and confirming that regular alternating weekend access would resume after the summer.

Other requested relief was adjourned.

On a motion to change following a review clause in a divorce order, the payor spouse sought termination or reduction of spousal support, while the recipient sought increased support under the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The court determined the matter should proceed as a review rather than a variation, meaning no material change in circumstances was required.

After considering the Divorce Act factors, the parties’ long marriage, the recipient’s mental health conditions affecting employability, and the payor’s pension and employment income, the court increased spousal support.

Applying the SSAG without child support formula, the court set support at the midpoint of the guideline range and ordered indefinite duration due to the length of the marriage and the “rule of 65”.