12 total
Motion to vaccinate children against COVID-19 dismissed; court declined to take judicial notice of vaccine safety.
The respondent mother brought a motion seeking sole decision-making authority to have the parties' three children vaccinated against COVID-19 without the applicant father's consent.
The mother relied on public health recommendations and previous case law taking judicial notice that the vaccines are safe and effective.
The father opposed the motion, arguing the vaccines were experimental and seeking to present expert evidence at trial.
The court declined to take judicial notice that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective, finding the issue to be controversial and capable of dispute by reasonable people.
The motion was dismissed and the matter was deferred to trial to allow the father to present expert evidence.
Full recovery costs of $161,606.69 awarded to successful applicant mother due to respondent father's bad faith.
Following a trial where the applicant mother was entirely successful on issues of parenting time and child support, she sought costs of $161,606.69.
The court found the respondent father acted in bad faith by misrepresenting evidence regarding a replica gun strapped to the child's crib and by shaving the child's head in retaliation for a failed mediation.
Due to the finding of bad faith under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules, and considering the applicant's reasonable offers to settle, the court awarded the applicant her full costs of $161,606.69, payable forthwith, with one-third enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office as child support.
Temporary support varied due to COVID-19 income loss, with novel four-month adjustment mechanism ordered.
The respondent father brought a motion to vary a temporary consent order for child and spousal support, arguing his commission-based income was decimated by the COVID-19 pandemic.
The court found it had jurisdiction to vary the temporary order in these exceptional circumstances.
Recognizing the unprecedented economic impact of the pandemic, the court varied support retroactively to June 2020 based on the father's reduced 2020 income and implemented a novel mechanism requiring support to be adjusted every four months based on his annualized income for the preceding period.
Judge voluntarily recuses himself in severe parental alienation case to prevent further delay and harm.
The respondent father brought a motion seeking the recusal of the case management judge, alleging bias.
The judge had previously found the father engaged in severe parental alienation and ordered reintegration therapy, which the father repeatedly delayed and undermined.
Following a Divisional Court ruling that stayed other contested motions pending the recusal motion, the judge voluntarily withdrew from the case.
The judge issued a lengthy endorsement detailing the father's history of alienation, deception, and manipulation, explaining that his withdrawal was necessary to prevent the father from using the recusal motion to further delay proceedings and harm the children.
Motion to strike pleadings for non-disclosure dismissed as disproportionate where respondent substantially complied.
The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings and impose a $224,000 penalty for alleged non-compliance with a previous disclosure order.
The court found that the respondent had substantially complied with the disclosure requirements, with only minor items outstanding, including an explanation for a $25,000 withdrawal made prior to separation.
The court dismissed the motion, holding that striking pleadings is reserved for egregious situations and that the applicant's requested relief was disproportionate and overly aggressive.
Society's motion to withdraw protection application adjourned as high-conflict parents still posed risk of emotional harm.
The applicant Society brought a motion for leave to withdraw its child protection application and terminate temporary care and custody orders.
The father and the Office of the Children's Lawyer supported the motion, while the mother opposed it.
The court reviewed the extensive history of high conflict between the parents and found that the child remained at risk of emotional harm demonstrated by serious anxiety if the Society were to withdraw.
The court emphasized that the parents needed to engage in family therapy and utilize private resources such as a parenting coordinator rather than relying indefinitely on the Society and the court.
The motion was adjourned for four to six months to allow the Society to assist the parents in directing them to appropriate private resources.
Child removed from mother's temporary care and placed with paternal uncle due to alienation risk.
The applicant Society brought a motion to vary a temporary care and custody order, seeking to remove the child from the respondent mother's care and place him with his paternal uncle.
The Society alleged that the mother was alienating the child from the respondent father and had fabricated allegations of sexual abuse.
The court found a material change in circumstances and that the child was at risk of emotional harm in the mother's care.
The court ordered the child placed in the temporary care of the paternal uncle, with supervised access for the mother and reunification therapy for the father.
Summary judgment granted placing abused children in extended society care with no parental access.
The applicant children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to have two children placed in extended society care with no parental access.
The children had been apprehended following severe physical abuse and restraint by the respondent parents.
The court applied the summary judgment framework and found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the material facts of the abuse were established and the parents' parenting capacity assessments indicated a high risk of future harm.
The motion was granted, the children were placed in extended society care, and parental access was denied as it was not in the children's best interests.
Sole custody awarded to mother with 90-day no-contact order against father due to severe parental alienation.
The applicant mother brought a motion to change a 2013 consent order regarding custody and access of the parties' three children, seeking sole custody due to severe parental alienation by the respondent father.
The father brought a cross-motion seeking primary residence.
After a 14-day trial, the court found overwhelming evidence that the father had engaged in a relentless campaign of severe parental alienation, manipulating the children into unjustifiably rejecting their mother.
The court concluded there was a material change in circumstances and that a drastic response was required in the children's best interests.
The court granted the mother sole temporary custody, ordered the children to have no contact with the father or his extended family for a minimum of 90 days, and directed the mother and children to attend the Family Bridges reunification program.
The court varied ambiguous child support provisions by imputing income and adjusting for eligible children.
This decision addresses a Motion to Change seeking to vary child support provisions of a Separation Agreement dated November 12, 2008.
The applicant sought to reduce child support retroactively and prospectively based on the Child Support Guidelines and the number of eligible children, and to discharge arrears.
The respondent sought dismissal of the motion and recovery of arrears.
The court found significant ambiguity and inconsistency in the Separation Agreement's child support clauses, particularly regarding the fixed amount versus eligibility criteria.
The court imputed an income of $90,000 per annum to the applicant and adjusted child support retroactively from May 1, 2013, and prospectively, incorporating a "premium" component from the original agreement and an offset for a period when one child resided with the applicant.
The court also imputed an income of $30,000 to the respondent for offset purposes.
Father's claims for retroactive section 7 expenses and ongoing RESP contributions dismissed due to prior settlement.
The applicant father brought an application seeking retroactive section 7 expenses, maximum contributions to the children's RESPs, and contribution to a cell phone expense.
The court found that the parties' prior Minutes of Settlement extinguished any claim for retroactive section 7 expenses.
The court also found a material change in circumstances regarding the respondent mother's income, relieving her of the obligation to make future RESP contributions beyond equalizing past amounts.
The cell phone expense was capped at $30 per month.
Joint custody and primary residence to mother awarded; step-parent child support ordered based on settled intention.
The parties separated after a brief cohabitation.
They had one biological child together, and the respondent mother had an older child from a previous relationship.
The court awarded joint custody of the biological child, with primary residence to the respondent mother due to the geographical distance between the parents and the strong sibling bond.
The court also found that the applicant father had demonstrated a settled intention to treat the older child as his own during the relationship, and ordered him to pay a reduced amount of step-parent child support.
