Philip J. Clay

Motion to change a child support order dated January 12, 2006.

The father sought to terminate child support for an adult child, arguing the child was no longer enrolled in a full-time program of education.

The mother opposed termination and sought a retroactive increase to child support based on the father's increased income since 2013.

The court found the child was enrolled in a full-time program of education suited to his abilities and was entitled to continued support.

The court rejected the claim for retroactive support prior to November 1, 2016, finding no effective notice had been given by the mother prior to that date.

The father's undue hardship claim was dismissed as he failed to demonstrate that his children would suffer deprivation if the table amount was ordered.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion seeking the return of a child to the United Arab Emirates on the basis that the applicant father had wrongfully abducted the child from the U.A.E. and that the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction.

The father had taken the child to Canada on August 16, 2016, following a family dispute.

The mother obtained a custody order in the U.A.E. on January 9, 2017, providing her with custody and ordering the child's return.

The court found that the child was habitually resident in the U.A.E. at the time of removal, that Ontario lacked jurisdiction, and that no exception applied.

The court recognized the U.A.E. order and directed the immediate return of the child to the mother.

A trial decision addressing custody, access, child support, and spousal support following an application by the mother to modify a separation agreement.

The parties had shared joint custody with a three-day rotation since separation in 2012.

The mother sought sole custody or primary residence; the father sought to maintain joint custody with a week-about schedule.

The court maintained joint custody but modified the time-sharing arrangement to provide the mother with most school nights to facilitate homework assistance, while the father retained significant weekend time.

The court ordered child support under the shared custody provisions of the Child Support Guidelines and awarded spousal support for a seven-year term.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a child support order dated February 10, 2009, seeking retroactive adjustment for underpayment during 2012-2014 and claiming the respondent father had intentionally become unemployed.

The respondent father sought to reduce child support to zero due to job loss in February 2014.

The court found a material change in circumstances and determined that the father was intentionally underemployed and should have sought work in his field.

The court retroactively adjusted child support based on actual and imputed income for 2013-2015, imputed income of $50,000 going forward, and established an arrears payment plan.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for custody of a five-month-old infant child born to unmarried parents.

The respondent mother and maternal grandmother also brought competing custody applications.

The court consolidated the proceedings in Brampton, finding that the child was ordinarily resident there.

The court set aside prior without prejudice orders and established a temporary parenting plan providing the father with substantial access to the child, contingent upon the mother residing with the maternal grandmother and receiving treatment for mental health concerns.

The court emphasized the presumption favoring parental custody while recognizing the need for immediate protection of the child during the mother's mental health crisis.

The applicant sought joint custody of his two biological children with the respondent.

The respondent sought custody of all three children (including her daughter from a previous relationship) and child support.

The court determined that the applicant demonstrated a settled intention to treat the respondent's daughter as a child of his family under the Family Law Act.

The court also imputed income to the applicant for child support purposes, finding his reported income unreliable based on his lifestyle, expenses, and business operations.

The court ordered child support for all three children based on an imputed annual income of $50,000.

A costs decision following a summary hearing on child support and arrears.

The applicant sought costs based on late disclosure by the respondent and the respondent's failure to provide affidavit evidence.

The respondent argued there was divided success.

The court found no late disclosure that increased costs and determined that success was divided: the applicant achieved a higher ongoing child support order than the respondent proposed, but the arrears calculation was significantly lower than claimed.

The court ordered no costs under Rule 24(6) of the Family Law Rules.

The applicant sought a final restraining order against the respondent and determination of access to their two children.

The respondent had a history of verbal and physical abuse toward the applicant, including assault and uttering threats for which he was convicted.

After the applicant ended the relationship in December 2013, the respondent repeatedly breached probation and restraining orders by attempting to contact her and harass her.

The respondent sought unsupervised access to the children, while the applicant sought access to remain in her discretion with supervision.

The court found the applicant credible and the respondent lacking insight into his abusive behavior.

The court made the restraining order final and granted custody to the applicant with access to the respondent in the applicant's discretion.

This is an addendum to reasons for judgment in a child protection matter under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

The court issued an addendum to clarify that the original order dated October 20, 2016 should include a provision granting the maternal grandparents authority to renew the child's passport and to travel with the child, or authorize the child's travel, out of Canada, without notice to or consent of the mother.

The addendum was necessary because this relief, which was discussed during the hearing and in the original reasons, was inadvertently omitted from the order section of the judgment.

This is a child protection matter involving three children under the Child and Family Services Act.

The Children's Aid Society brought two separate status review applications seeking final dispositions for the children.

The court conducted a summary judgment motion addressing whether the children continued to need protection and determining appropriate final dispositions and access arrangements.

The mother had significant untreated mental health issues including borderline personality disorder that impacted her parenting capacity.

The court found all three children in continuing need of protection.

For the oldest child, the court ordered custody to the maternal grandparents with graduated supervised access through the child's art therapist.

For the two younger children, the court made them Crown wards with access to the mother in the Society's discretion, as they were placed with extended family members who intended to adopt them.

An adult child sought child support from both parents under sections 3 and 7 of the Child Support Guidelines.

The child had moved out of the father's home in August 2015 due to family conflict and lived with a friend's mother.

The father argued the child had withdrawn from parental control and therefore was not entitled to support.

The court found the child did not voluntarily withdraw from parental control and ordered both parents to contribute to table child support for the period November 2015 to August 2016, as well as section 7 expenses and post-secondary education costs.

The court determined the child should contribute one-third of post-secondary expenses while the parents contribute proportionally to their incomes.

The applicant father sought to reduce child support payments following his termination from employment in August 2013.

The respondent mother sought a retroactive increase in table child support and arrears of section 7 expenses.

The court found a material change in circumstances and imputed income to the father of $47,750 annually (actual retirement income of $37,750 plus $10,000 for consulting work), resulting in table child support of $431 per month from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2020.

The court awarded arrears of $1,272 for table child support and $1,857.35 for section 7 expenses (tutoring only), payable at $150 per month.

The court also awarded costs of $2,500 to the respondent for obtaining proper disclosure.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer brought a motion seeking an order that the father undergo a Sexual Offence Specific Assessment.

The child had been apprehended in 2012 following allegations of sexual abuse by the father.

Although the father initially agreed to phallometric testing, he had not completed any assessment despite requests since 2012.

The Society's plan of care was to return the child to the parents' care without requiring the assessment.

The court found that the assessment was necessary to determine whether the father could be a primary caregiver and to assess the risk of sexual harm to the vulnerable child.

The motion was granted.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a final support order dated September 6, 2012, seeking to retroactively reduce child and spousal support and rescind arrears.

The father claimed his income had substantially decreased after he voluntarily left his long-term employment as a store manager earning approximately $82,000 annually to accept a lower-paying position earning $32,000 per year.

The applicant mother opposed the motion and sought dismissal with costs.

The court found a material change in circumstances but determined the father was intentionally underemployed and imputed income to him based on his earning capacity rather than his actual reduced income.

A costs decision in a family law matter involving custody and child support.

The applicant father sought custody of the child and child support.

The parties ultimately settled on joint custody with primary residence to the father, as recommended by the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The respondent mother sought costs of $19,902.28 for the non-financial issues.

The court awarded costs to the mother on a full recovery basis for work done after August 4, 2015, when the father failed to accept the mother's reasonable settlement offer.

The court fixed costs at $5,359.03, payable in two installments.

In a shared custody child support matter, the court determined the appropriate child support amount under section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines following a change in the timesharing arrangement.

The father sought custody and child support; the mother sought the same.

Following an Office of the Children's Lawyer report recommending joint custody with the child's primary residence with the father, the parties settled on custody and timesharing.

The court conducted a summary hearing on the outstanding issue of child support, applying the three-part test under section 9 of the Guidelines: the set-off calculation based on the parties' respective incomes, the increased costs of shared custody, and the condition, means, needs and circumstances of each party.

The court ordered the father to pay $64 per month in child support, representing the set-off amount, and directed the parties to share special and extraordinary expenses proportionally to their incomes.

The respondent father brought a motion for access to his child following a two-year termination of contact initiated by the applicant mother in January 2014.

The mother alleged the father had physically abused the child and was consuming alcohol excessively.

The court found that the child's stated fears of contact with the father were a product of the mother's manipulation and alienation.

Despite the child's expressed reluctance, the court ordered unsupervised access, finding that the father posed no risk and that the child required time alone with his father to form an independent view.

The court rejected supervised access as a stepping stone, finding it would perpetuate the mother's control and prevent reconciliation.

A mother sought child support arrears, section 7 expense contributions, and retroactive support from the father following a child support agreement signed in March 2014.

The father was laid off in May 2015 and ceased paying support.

The court determined that the father was not intentionally unemployed, as he reasonably awaited union work and obtained employment in October 2015.

The court imputed income based on actual 2015 earnings and averaged prior years' income for 2016 support calculations.

The father was ordered to pay arrears of table support and section 7 expenses, with ongoing support set at $1,444 monthly based on projected 2016 income of $75,000.

The Children's Aid Society of Peel brought a summary judgment motion seeking protection findings for four children in the care of C.D. The motion addressed whether the children were in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act.

The court found that K.B. suffered severe physical injuries while in C.D.'s exclusive care, including fractures, subdural hematomas, and genital injuries.

The court made protection findings under multiple subsections of s. 37(2) of the Act for all four children.

The other three children (M.M., A.B., and AA.B.) were found to be at risk of physical harm based on C.D.'s overwhelmed state and the serious injuries inflicted on K.B. The matter was adjourned for a disposition hearing.

The applicant father sought to prevent the respondent mother from obtaining a passport for their 15-month-old child and traveling to Sri Lanka for her brother's wedding from August 12 to September 4, 2015.

The father raised concerns about flight risk, security in Sri Lanka, and competing paternal family events in Ontario.

The court granted the mother's motion, finding no credible evidence of flight risk, no significant security concerns for travel to Colombo, and that the mother's family circumstances and the child's best interests supported the trip.

The court imposed conditions including security through a joint bank account freeze and communication requirements.