Rebecca Rosenstock

Following a motion to change parenting provisions and child support, both parties sought costs.

The mother sought full recovery costs of $28,747.49, arguing she was successful on both issues and the father behaved unreasonably.

The father sought full recovery costs of $22,318.35, arguing he was the successful party overall and the mother acted unreasonably.

The court found success was divided, with the father more successful on parenting issues and the mother more successful on child support.

Finding that the vast majority of time and resources were spent on the parenting dispute, the court ordered the mother to pay the father $5,000 in costs, to be set-off against outstanding child support.

The respondent father brought a motion to vary a temporary order to increase his parenting time with three of his children.

He alleged that the applicant mother was alienating the children from him and that increased time would provide greater predictability.

The applicant opposed the motion, citing differing parenting styles, safety concerns regarding COVID-19, and the children's expressed preferences.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer submitted that the current arrangement was consistent with the children's views.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no compelling reasons or demonstrated change in circumstances to justify altering the interim parenting schedule, noting that the children's comfort with the status quo was not persuasively linked to alienation.

Supplementary reasons for judgment regarding child support.

The court fixed the respondent father's child support arrears at $8,699.57, including contributions to section 7 expenses.

Ongoing basic child support was ordered at $256 per month based on an imputed income of $30,000.

The court declined to order the father to pay life insurance premiums to secure support due to his modest financial means.

The applicant mother and respondent father brought cross-motions to change a 2016 final order regarding parenting and child support for their nine-year-old son.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to high parental conflict and the child's expressed desire to spend more time with the father.

The court ordered a meaningful consultation process for major decisions with the mother retaining final decision-making authority, and increased the father's holiday and summer parenting time.

The court also imputed an annual income of $30,000 to the father for child support purposes, finding him voluntarily underemployed, but declined to order him to contribute to extracurricular activities due to his limited means.

The payor father brought a motion to change seeking to terminate spousal support or, alternatively, to impute a full-time minimum wage income to the recipient mother.

The mother opposed the motion and sought child support arrears and a variation of section 7 expenses.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding that the mother's continued unemployment was justified by her health issues and the significant special needs of the parties' two children, which required near full-time care.

Spousal support was maintained on both compensatory and non-compensatory grounds.

The father was ordered to pay $11,312 in child support arrears.

The mother's request to vary the section 7 expense provisions was dismissed as there was no material change in circumstances.

The applicant sought continued child support for the parties' 18-year-old child who was completing high school and planning to attend university.

The respondent argued the child was no longer a child of the marriage due to her unilateral estrangement from him.

The court held that the child remained a child of the marriage, noting that situational conflict does not disentitle a child to support.

The court ordered child support to continue until the end of August and directed the parties to discuss a financial plan for the child's post-secondary education.

The applicant brought a motion for child support and disclosure, while the respondent sought a shared parenting arrangement for their two youngest children.

The court ordered ongoing child support based on the respondent's current income but declined to order retroactive support on a temporary basis due to conflicting evidence.

The court dismissed the respondent's request for a week-about parenting schedule, finding it was not in the children's best interests, and maintained the status quo of alternating weekends with a mid-week visit.

The mother brought a motion to vary an interim order that had granted the father sole care and custody of their four-year-old child.

Following the interim order, the father restricted the mother's access to FaceTime calls only.

The court found that the father's unilateral decision to withhold in-person access constituted a material change in circumstances that negatively affected the child.

The court varied the interim order to grant the parties joint legal custody and awarded the mother extensive daytime parenting time, finding it in the child's best interests to restore in-person contact.

The applicant mother sought sole custody of the parties' two children in an uncontested trial.

The mother had moved to Ottawa with the children in 2017.

In May 2018, during a visit to Halifax, the respondent father withheld the older child and refused to return him to the mother.

The younger child remained with the mother in Ottawa.

The court granted the mother final sole custody of the younger child.

Finding that Ontario had jurisdiction under section 22 of the Children's Law Reform Act, the court granted the mother temporary sole custody of the older child and ordered his return, subject to the father's right to file responding materials.

Following an emergency motion and cross-motion regarding child custody, access, and support, the parties submitted written arguments on costs.

The applicant father had sought the return of the child and sole custody, while the respondent mother sought sole custody and a restraining order.

The court found divided success, as the father secured the child's return and access but not sole custody, while the mother retained primary care but failed to obtain a restraining order or supervised access.

Given the divided success, the unreasonable positions taken by both parties, and the absence of any offers to settle, the court made no order as to costs.