Rita Vanessa Gonsalves

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a motion decided on April 23, 2020.

The Respondent was substantially successful on the underlying motion.

Considering the Applicant's limited means, the court awarded costs to the Respondent on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $2600, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and applicable taxes.

The Applicant is to pay this sum to Legal Aid Ontario within 90 days, with the order explicitly stating it is not to be enforced by the Family Responsibility Office.

The applicant moved to vary existing interim orders to grant her primary residence of the children, alleging the respondent failed to comply with COVID-19 protocols.

The court found that the applicant did not prove a material change in circumstances on a balance of probabilities, as the evidence of non-compliance was largely hearsay.

The motion to vary was dismissed.

However, the court issued additional orders requiring both parties to comply with all applicable governmental directives and recommendations relating to COVID-19, specifically prohibiting children from visiting other households and restricting who could accompany the respondent during child exchanges.

The respondent father's application for a paternity test and a reduction in child support was dismissed.

The applicant mother and the assignee (Ministry) sought costs.

The court found the applicant was completely successful and had made a reasonable offer to settle, entitling her to full recovery costs.

The respondent's behaviour was found to be unreasonable and his evidence unreliable.

The court awarded the applicant $7,486.25 in costs.

The court declined to award costs to the assignee, noting that doing so would deprive the applicant of funds needed to support the child.

The applicant father sought to change a 2012 consent order from joint custody to sole custody, to establish child support obligations for the respondent mother, and to establish a new access schedule following his relocation with the children to Saskatchewan.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the father's employment-driven move to Saskatchewan and the mother's deteriorated health.

The court maintained the joint custody arrangement, finding both parents had meaningful contributions to offer the children.

The court imputed income to the mother based on her financial discrepancies and ordered her to pay child support of $467 per month commencing June 1, 2016.

The court established a detailed access schedule for the mother's visits with the children in Ontario and clarified transportation cost allocation between the parents.

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 temporary custody of two young children and permission to relocate them to France.

The respondent mother opposed the transfer and sought return of the children to her primary care.

The court found that the father's concerns about the mother's mental health deterioration during the summer were credible and well-grounded, supported by observations from multiple independent sources including the Children's Aid Society.

The court determined that the father could provide greater stability for the children at that time and granted him temporary custody with supervised access for the mother.

The court also granted permission for the father to relocate with the children to France, finding that Canada was not the appropriate jurisdiction for long-term parenting arrangements given immigration constraints, language considerations, and the availability of family support in France.