Robert J. Spence

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking leave to bring a contempt motion on an urgent basis, a finding that the applicant grandmother was in contempt of a consent final order dated May 30, 2018, and an order directing police to locate and apprehend the child and deliver her to the mother.

The grandmother had refused to return the child at the end of a scheduled weekend access period on September 2, 2018, contrary to the final order which granted sole custody to the mother with specified access to the grandmother.

The court granted the mother's motion, ordering the grandmother to forthwith return the child to the mother's care and no later than 5:00 p.m. that day, with a police enforcement clause.

The contempt motion was adjourned.

Following a three-day trial on child support, spousal support, and income imputation, the mother was successful on all issues.

The father was ordered to pay child support of $4,476 per month based on an imputed income of $175,000 (rather than his claimed $40,000), and spousal support of $1,240 per month.

The mother subsequently sought costs of $36,477.29.

The court awarded costs of $31,425.04, applying a 25% reduction to pre-trial preparation hours due to the mother's counsel failing to segregate hours before and after the offer to settle date, but otherwise awarding full recovery of costs from the offer date forward pursuant to the presumption in Family Law Rule 18(14).

A trial decision on child support and spousal support following the separation of two spouses who were married for approximately 22 years.

The primary issue was the determination of the respondent father's income for support purposes.

The mother sought an imputation of $175,000 annually, while the father claimed his income should be imputed at $30,000.

The court found the father's evidence severely lacking in credibility due to numerous inconsistencies, undisclosed assets, questionable expense deductions, and non-compliance with disclosure orders.

The court imputed income to the father at $130,000 and ordered child support of $4,431 per month (comprising $3,647 table amount plus $784 for section 7 expenses) and spousal support of $1,240 per month for an indefinite duration, subject to review after five years.

The mother was found entitled to support on both compensatory and needs-based grounds, given her significant childcare responsibilities, hearing loss disability, and diminished earning capacity.

The respondent father brought a motion to set aside a default order dated November 6, 2017, which granted sole final custody of a four-year-old child to the mother and awarded child support of $442 per month based on an imputed annual income of $49,100.

The father argued he was actively involved in the proceeding and nearly completed his materials when noted in default.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the father's supporting affidavit lacked substance and failed to disclose adequate grounds for a defence on the merits.

The father had failed to file required financial documentation despite multiple extensions and nearly eight months since service of the application.

A mother sought leave to bring a status review application to regain custody of two children (ages 6 and 4) who were made Crown wards without access in November 2015 following a 12-day trial.

The children had been in continuous foster care for nearly four years.

The mother claimed significant personal changes including separation from the father, completion of parenting courses, psychological assessment showing insight, and improved independence.

However, the court found the mother's credibility was severely compromised by her submission of a fraudulent airline ticket to deny violating the no-access order, her continued involvement with the father despite claims of separation, and her pattern of deception consistent with her trial conduct.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, finding the mother had not established a prima facie case for relief and remained ungovernable.

The mother brought a motion seeking an order for child support for the parties' one-year-old son.

The father opposed immediate payment, arguing he was incapable of gainful employment due to mental health impairments and that his child support obligation should be deferred until completion of his education plans.

The court found the father's health needs reasonably precluded him from current employment but rejected his proposed deferral of support for 8-10 years as unreasonable.

The court deferred the father's obligation for one year with the expectation he would pursue vocational rehabilitation, then imputed income based on half-time minimum wage employment for year two, and full-time minimum wage employment thereafter.

Paternal grandparents sought to be added as parties to a child protection proceeding and requested interim access to three children (ages 13, 10, and 4) whose mother was murdered and whose father was charged with first-degree murder.

The children were placed in the care of maternal grandparents.

The court dismissed the motion in its entirety, finding that adding the paternal grandparents as parties was not in the children's best interests, would unduly delay proceedings, and was not necessary to determine the issues.

The court also dismissed claims for interim access and documentary disclosure, and refused to admit a transcript from the father's criminal preliminary hearing due to fairness concerns and publication ban restrictions.

This is a costs decision following a trial on a spousal support claim.

The mother was awarded $1,275 per month in spousal support commencing April 1, 2017.

The mother had served an Offer to Settle seeking $900 per month commencing September 1, 2017, which was more favourable than the trial outcome.

The father failed to accept the offer and did not file responding costs submissions.

The court awarded the mother full recovery of costs from the date of the offer and partial recovery prior to that date, totalling $14,203.30, payable within 45 days.

Parents sought an extension of time to file their Answer/Plan of Care in a child protection proceeding under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

The application was served on the parents on June 10, 2017, seeking a finding that the children were in need of protection due to excessive school absences.

The parents were initially granted an extension to September 25, 2017, but failed to file by that date.

Five months after service, they retained counsel and brought a motion for a further extension.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the parents' stated objectives could be achieved without filing pleadings, that no genuine issue for trial existed given the parents' agreement with the society's recommendations, and that the children's right to timely disposition outweighed the parents' right to participate through late-filed pleadings.

The applicant mother sought spousal support from the respondent father in a short marriage that ended following the father's criminal assault on the mother.

The father conceded that some spousal support was owing but disputed the amount.

The father failed to file his evidence in chief as ordered and did not testify at trial.

The court awarded spousal support of $1,275 per month for an indefinite duration, reviewable after December 31, 2021.

The court rejected the father's argument that the mother should be working or that income should be imputed to her, finding her decision to pursue English language education and vocational training reasonable given her circumstances as sole caregiver of two children, one of whom suffered emotional trauma from witnessing the father's assault.

A child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act in which the applicant society sought a finding that a 15-year-old girl was in need of protection.

The society alleged physical abuse, emotional harm, and risk of ongoing harm resulting from the mother's pattern of aggressive behavior, uncontrolled anger, and unaddressed mental health issues.

The mother denied the allegations and provided sparse evidence consisting largely of bald denials.

The father and the Office of the Children's Lawyer supported the society's position.

The court found that the child had suffered physical harm through repeated hitting and was at risk of ongoing physical harm, and that the child had suffered serious emotional harm including anxiety and fear, with ongoing risk of emotional harm.

The court granted the finding in need of protection under sections 37(2)(a)(ii), 37(2)(b)(ii), 37(2)(f), and 37(2)(g) of the Act.

This is a Status Review application under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Children's Aid Society sought an order making three young children Crown wards with no access for the purpose of adoption.

The children had been apprehended in December 2015 and placed in continuous foster care.

The mother opposed the application and sought the immediate return of all three children to her care, alternatively requesting a supervision order.

The court found that the mother suffers from untreated schizophrenia with poor insight and judgment, the maternal grandmother suffers from schizoaffective disorder and poses a risk of harm to the children, and the mother has demonstrated an inability to provide safe and effective parenting despite over 90 supervised access visits spanning approximately 18 months.

The court concluded that a supervision order would be inadequate to protect the children and made an order for Crown wardship with no access, finding this to be in the best interests of the children.

This is a costs decision following a two-day family law trial concerning custody, access, and child support.

The respondent mother was substantially successful on all issues, obtaining sole custody, a parenting schedule favoring her position, and child support of $1,172 per month based on imputed income of $80,000.

The applicant father opposed the costs award, arguing the mother's claim of $55,577 was excessive.

The court found the father acted in bad faith throughout the litigation, including disobeying court orders and engaging in non-disclosure and misrepresentation.

The mother served four offers to settle, all of which were rejected or ignored by the father.

The court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis, finding the father's conduct warranted full recovery of costs.

A costs decision following a seven-day family law trial concerning custody, parenting time, and child support.

The mother was substantially successful on all issues and sought costs on a full recovery basis totaling $60,340.

The father, representing himself, sought costs from the mother in the amount of $157,330, claiming victimization and making serious allegations against the mother's counsel and the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The court awarded costs to the mother in the amount of $45,000, disallowing the law clerk fees in their entirety and reducing the overall award to account for the father's modest financial circumstances.

A family law trial concerning custody, access, and child support for two young children.

The father sought joint custody and 50-50 shared parenting, while the mother sought sole custody with restricted access.

The court found the father's conduct throughout the litigation to be deeply problematic, including verbal and emotional abuse of the mother, extensive non-disclosure of financial information, active misrepresentation to Canada Revenue Agency, and repeated violations of court orders.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother and restricted access to the father, while imputing income of $80,000 for child support purposes.

Two competing motions to change a final custody and access order.

The father sought specified unsupervised access to two children; the mother sought supervised access, change from joint to sole custody, and child support.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on escalating parental conflict, the father's campaign to discredit the mother's parenting, and the mother's de facto assumption of sole custodial responsibilities.

The court varied the joint custody order to sole custody to the mother, expanded the father's access to the younger child to unsupervised time, and maintained supervised access to the older child with a graduated transition plan.

Child support was affirmed based on the father's disclosed income.

This is a costs decision following a trial in a family law matter concerning child support and access.

The mother was the successful party, obtaining an order for child support based on imputed income significantly higher than the father's position.

The mother sought costs of $11,208 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The father opposed the costs award, arguing inability to pay based on his asserted income.

The court awarded the mother the full amount of costs requested, finding the father's conduct unreasonable throughout the proceedings, including failure to provide complete disclosure, failure to make a settlement offer, and last-minute concessions on access and commencement date that forced unnecessary trial preparation.

A child protection society brought a motion for contempt of court against a father who failed to comply with two prior court orders.

The first order, issued by Justice Zisman on March 31, 2016, required the father to attend and complete the PARS program and undergo addiction assessment.

The second order, issued by Justice Curtis on August 15, 2016, required the father to live apart from the mother and child.

The father admitted non-compliance and offered illness as a defence, but provided no credible medical evidence.

The court found the father in civil contempt, having satisfied all three elements of the contempt test: the orders were clear and unequivocal, the father breached them deliberately and wilfully, and the evidence established contempt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court deferred sentencing to allow the father an opportunity to cure his contempt and demonstrate remorse.

A family law matter concerning custody, access, and child support for a three-year-old child born to unmarried parents.

The father sought joint custody and generous unsupervised access, while the mother sought sole custody with discretionary access to the father.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, found that access should remain in the mother's discretion, and imputed income to the father for child support purposes based on his incomplete financial disclosure and evasive financial practices.

The respondent mother, who was substantially successful on all issues in a three-day custody and access trial, sought costs on a full recovery basis totaling $36,103.

The applicant father argued that costs should be limited to $10,000-$12,000 based on his financial constraints and the importance of custody matters.

The court awarded costs of $31,674, finding that the mother was entitled to full recovery costs under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The court disallowed the paralegal fees entirely due to lack of detail in the bill of costs, excessive hourly rates, and the nature of work performed.

The court emphasized that the costs rules are designed to discourage family law litigation and that parties cannot escape costs consequences by arguing the importance of custody cases or their honest beliefs about the child's best interests.