P. MacEachern

The father brought an application under the Hague Convention for the return of the parties' two children to Adelaide, Australia.

The mother had travelled to Ontario with the children for a temporary visit but failed to return them.

The court found that the children were wrongfully retained in April 2020 and that their habitual residence immediately prior to the retention was Australia.

The court rejected the mother's argument that the 11-year-old child's views should be considered as an exception to return.

The application was granted and the children were ordered to be returned to Australia.

The applicant sought costs of $1,800 following a successful motion for disclosure.

The respondent argued that each party should bear their own costs or that costs should be fixed at $100, citing limited financial means and an offer to settle.

The court found the applicant was the more successful party and that the respondent's conduct was unreasonable for failing to provide evidence supporting her claim that disclosure would be too onerous.

The court fixed costs at $1,300 payable by the respondent, noting that her failure to pay previous costs awards of $42,000 should not insulate her from further costs.

The respondent sought costs of $13,884.94 on a full indemnity basis following a successful motion for unsupervised interim parenting time.

The applicant argued each party should bear their own costs or that costs should be reduced to reflect only the portion of the motion dedicated to the parenting time issue.

The court found the respondent was the successful party but noted his bill of costs included fees for other issues not decided on the motion.

The court fixed costs at $3,000, representing approximately 33% of the total claimed, finding this amount reasonable and proportional.

The applicant father brought a motion for parenting time and Office of the Children's Lawyer involvement following his release from prison.

The respondent mother opposed direct contact, citing the children's resistance.

The court declined to order graduated access due to concerns about the children's well-being and lack of reliable evidence regarding their views.

Instead, the court ordered interim contact via a letter and a videoconference facilitated by the children's counsellor, pending further information and OCL involvement.

The parties separated after a 33-year relationship during which they had three children.

The applicant sought spousal support, child support, damages for unjust enrichment, and a restraining order.

The court found the respondent lacked credibility and imputed his income at $100,000 per year due to non-disclosure and voluntary underemployment.

The court awarded the applicant a $330,000 lump sum for indefinite spousal support, finding it adequately compensated her for her contributions to the joint family venture, thereby dismissing the separate unjust enrichment claim.

A restraining order was also granted against the respondent.

The father brought a motion for an interim parenting schedule within the mother's motion to change proceeding.

The father sought a 2-2-3 equal timesharing arrangement, which the parties had previously agreed to in negotiations before the mother changed her mind.

The father also sought an order requiring the mother to disclose international travel and comply with COVID-19 quarantine directives, after discovering she had travelled internationally multiple times without notice and failed to quarantine upon return.

The court granted the father's motion, ordering interim joint custody, a 2-2-3 timesharing schedule, and compliance with travel and quarantine directives, finding it in the child's best interests.

The mother's request for an order requiring the father to sign the child's passport was dismissed.

The applicant mother brought a motion to set aside a previous order granting her temporary sole custody and to establish primary residence and school enrollment for the parties' four-year-old child.

The respondent father sought interim equal timesharing and for the child to remain at his current school.

The court set aside the previous order, finding that the status quo prior to the mother unilaterally terminating access was an equal timesharing arrangement.

The court ordered temporary joint custody and equal timesharing, and directed that the child remain at his current school to minimize disruption.

The issue of child support was adjourned.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a 2016 access order to allow for unsupervised alternate weekend and mid-week access.

The respondent mother opposed the motion and sought retroactive child support.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding he failed to establish a material change in circumstances as he had not addressed previous concerns regarding his reckless behaviour and substance abuse.

The court granted the mother's request for retroactive child support, ordering the father to pay support based on his income commencing March 1, 2016, as he had failed to disclose his income increases.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking temporary primary care of the parties' two young children, alleging the respondent mother's mental health posed a risk.

The mother, who was the primary caregiver prior to separation, also sought primary care.

The court found no evidence that the children were in danger in the mother's care, noting that neither the police nor the Children's Aid Society had raised protection concerns.

The court ordered that the children reside primarily with the mother, with the father having temporary access on alternate weekends and one mid-week overnight.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion for the return of the children to his care after the applicant mother unilaterally withheld them and withdrew them from in-person schooling, in breach of previous court orders.

The mother argued her actions were justified due to COVID-19 concerns.

The court found the mother's unilateral self-help was not in the children's best interests and ordered the children immediately returned to the father's primary care, granting him temporary sole custodial decision-making to ensure compliance with schooling orders.

The applicant mother sought to schedule an urgent motion for the return of the parties' 15-year-old child, who was currently residing with the respondent father in Alberta.

The father had commenced legal proceedings in Alberta, and the parties disputed whether Ontario or Alberta had jurisdiction.

The triage judge dismissed the request for an urgent motion, finding that the delay since the father's refusal to return the child in August 2020 negated the urgency, and that the motion appeared to be a strategic race to obtain a court order.

The court directed the parties to address the jurisdictional issue at a case conference.

In a high-conflict family law proceeding, the respondent mother brought a motion seeking an extension of time to respond to the applicant father's Request to Admit to avoid deemed admissions, and to strike two subsequent Requests to Admit.

The court found that the respondent had served a blanket refusal within the required 20 days, meaning no deemed admissions occurred, and thus no extension was necessary.

The court also struck the applicant's second and third Requests to Admit as improper and an abuse of process, noting they sought admissions about privileged settlement conference discussions.

The parties separated and the applicant father withheld the child from the respondent mother, citing concerns about her mental health.

The father sought an order restricting the mother to supervised access.

The mother provided medical evidence showing she was actively engaged in treatment for depression and anxiety and that her condition had significantly improved.

The court found it was in the child's best interests to be in an equal timesharing arrangement on a temporary basis, noting the mother's positive steps in addressing her mental health and her historical role as a primary caregiver.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion to suspend or vary the respondent father's access to their three-and-a-half-year-old child due to concerns about COVID-19 risks, specifically the father's use of public transit and lack of forthrightness about household health.

The court found a material change in circumstances and ordered a temporary variation of the access schedule.

The father's mid-week access was suspended, and his alternate weekend access was extended from Friday at noon to Sunday at 6 pm, with transportation to be shared equally using private vehicles.

The respondent brought a Form 14B motion seeking an order permitting service by email and leave to file an Affidavit of Divorce, as the applicant had not pursued his simple divorce application.

The court noted that under the COVID-19 emergency directives, an order for email service was unnecessary.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to file the affidavit, explaining that a motion for divorce is not a procedural motion and cannot be processed during the current suspension of regular court services.

The respondent was granted leave to bring a further motion seeking leave to file an Answer.

The moving party mother sought to proceed with a case conference for her motion to change custody and access, arguing the matter was urgent despite the COVID-19 court suspension directive.

She claimed urgency based on the youngest child's alleged suicide threat regarding access to her.

The court found the matter was not urgent, noting the responding party father had already taken appropriate steps by seeking medical assessment and counselling for the child, and that supervised access was unlikely to occur during the pandemic.

The matter was adjourned and the mother was ordered to pay $500 in costs.

The applicant brought a support variation application under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act seeking retroactive and ongoing child support.

The respondent had failed to provide annual income disclosure as required by a 2004 consent order, despite his income increasing significantly.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $26,390 in retroactive child support arrears, rejecting his arguments that access costs and direct payments to the children should reduce the amount owed.

The court also imputed income to the applicant and ordered her to pay $80 per month for the adult child who had moved to reside with the respondent.

The applicant father brought a motion for interim primary residence of the parties' 12-year-old child, which was adjourned pending a Voice of the Child Report.

The court addressed several interim issues, ordering the child to change counsellors after the father unilaterally engaged a counsellor without the mother's consent.

The court also ordered the father to pay interim child support on a set-off basis and interim spousal support at the high range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

Further orders were made regarding the equal sharing of matrimonial home expenses, the distribution of home sale proceeds, and corporate disclosure.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for the production of third-party mental health and police records relating to the respondent mother in a child protection status review proceeding.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing it was a fishing expedition and an invasion of her privacy.

The court granted the motion, finding that the records may be relevant to assessing the mother's ability to parent and the children's best interests, and that the mother had not provided a physician's statement indicating that disclosure would cause harm.

The respondent father brought a motion to change the parenting arrangement, which was largely dismissed.

The applicant mother sought costs of $25,000.

The court found the mother was the successful party and that the father's conduct in bringing the motion without proper evidence and ignoring a previous order was unreasonable.

The court awarded the mother $20,000 in costs on a partial indemnity basis, balancing the father's unreasonable conduct against his limited financial resources.