Robert K. McQueen

Appeal from orders of the Superior Court requiring the appellant mother to return two children to their habitual residence in England pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

The application judge declined to assess whether the grave risk of harm exception applied due to conflicting affidavit evidence and ordered the children's return.

The Court of Appeal found three errors: the application judge improperly awarded custody as a sanction for breach of the return order, lacked jurisdiction to order the appellant to return to England with the children, and erred in declining to assess the grave risk of harm exception under Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention.

The appeal was allowed and the orders were set aside.

The appellant moved for a stay of an order requiring the return of two children to England under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

The respondent brought a cross-motion to dismiss the appeal.

The application judge had ordered the children returned to England, their habitual residence, after finding that the appellant had wrongfully retained them in Canada.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the cross-motion, finding the two sets of reasons constituted one final order appealable within the prescribed timeframe.

The court refused to stay the order for return of the children, finding no irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured prompt return.

However, the court granted a partial stay with respect to portions of the order purporting to order the appellant's return to England and to award custody to the respondent if the children were not returned by the deadline.

A custody and child support trial involving two unmarried parents of a four-year-old child.

The applicant father sought sole custody with limited access for the respondent mother, while the respondent sought sole custody with alternating weekend and mid-week access for the father.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, finding that while both parents were evenly matched on most best interests factors, the mother demonstrated greater willingness to compromise and include the father in the child's care.

The father's pattern of argumentative behavior, unilateral decision-making, and unwillingness to cooperate with professionals and the other parent weighed against him.

The court also imputed income to the father and ordered retroactive child support arrears.

The applicant, Aryann Shalini Maharaj, sought full indemnity costs of $56,386.43 following an 11-day trial on custody, access, and property issues, alleging the respondent, Lincoln Wilfred-Jacob, acted unreasonably and in bad faith.

The respondent argued for no costs or minor costs due to financial burden.

The court, applying Family Law Rules 18 and 24, found the applicant was largely successful in the underlying trial but neither party's conduct amounted to bad faith, though the respondent acted more unreasonably.

Considering the complexity, the respondent's conduct in delaying the case, and proportionality, the court awarded the applicant $40,000 in all-inclusive costs.

The parties separated after a tumultuous six-year marriage.

The applicant mother sought sole custody of their child, spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The respondent father sought to maintain a joint custody regime and requested an unequal division of property.

The court found the father was engaging in alienating behaviours and granted sole custody to the mother, with the father's access conditional on his attendance at parental alienation counselling.

The court imputed income to both parties, awarded the mother past spousal support, and ordered an equal division of net family property, resulting in an equalization payment of $117,132.31 to the mother.

The respondent father brought a motion for access to his child following a two-year termination of contact initiated by the applicant mother in January 2014.

The mother alleged the father had physically abused the child and was consuming alcohol excessively.

The court found that the child's stated fears of contact with the father were a product of the mother's manipulation and alienation.

Despite the child's expressed reluctance, the court ordered unsupervised access, finding that the father posed no risk and that the child required time alone with his father to form an independent view.

The court rejected supervised access as a stepping stone, finding it would perpetuate the mother's control and prevent reconciliation.

The parties in a family law dispute involving custody of two children jointly requested a sealing order for the court file.

One of the children had gender identity issues, which had attracted media attention following a related child protection proceeding.

The court declined to seal the entire file, emphasizing the open court principle and the public interest in the debate over parental influence on gender identity.

However, to protect the child's privacy, the court ordered that the parties and children be identified by initials and imposed a publication ban on any identifying information.

The maternal grandparents and mother sought a stay of an Ontario Court of Justice order that granted temporary care and custody of two children to their father pending an appeal.

The children had been living with the maternal grandparents after the mother voluntarily placed them there.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the stay, finding that the appeal raised serious issues, including whether a parent has priority over a grandparent, and that it was in the children's best interests to remain in their current, familiar environment with the maternal grandparents to minimize disruption pending the appeal.

The Children's Aid Society of the Region of Peel brought a motion seeking temporary care and custody orders for three children under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

The mother consented to placement of all three children with the maternal grandparents.

The father of two of the children sought placement in his own care.

The court determined that both the maternal grandparents and the father qualified as "persons in charge" under the Act.

However, the court found that placement with the father was in the children's best interests, as it would minimize ongoing parental conflict and prioritize placement with a parent over grandparents.

The mother had breached an existing domestic court order by placing the children with the maternal grandparents without consulting the father.

A child protection application brought by the Children's Aid Society seeking temporary care and custody of two young children (ages 3 and 4) based on allegations of emotional harm caused by the mother's approach to the older child's gender expression.

The mother had begun socially transitioning the child to a female identity based on the child's expressed gender variant preferences.

The father opposed the placement and alleged the mother was forcing the child to be a girl against his wishes.

The court found that while there was a risk of emotional harm, it was caused by parental conflict rather than either parent's conduct alone.

The court determined the children could be adequately protected under a supervision order in the mother's care and returned the children to both parents under the custody and access regime that existed prior to intervention, subject to strict supervision and compliance with expert recommendations.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding child support, section 7 expenses, net family property, and costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the majority of the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's decisions not to impute income, to cap figure skating expenses at $10,000 per year, and to limit the life insurance obligation to age 18.

However, the court allowed the appeal on the issue of trial costs, awarding the appellant $7,500 because her offer to settle was more favourable than the trial result.

Costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondent.

Following the dismissal of a family law appeal concerning a custody order granting the father sole custody and denying the mother access pending further order, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The successful party sought costs of the appeal pursuant to Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules.

The court confirmed the presumption that a successful litigant is entitled to costs and found that counsel’s hourly rate and time spent were reasonable given the volume of material.

Although the court accepted that the appellant’s financial circumstances were a relevant factor, it held that the respondent’s pro bono retainer with counsel did not mitigate entitlement to costs.

Fixed costs of $30,000 were awarded to the successful party.

The mother appealed a trial judge's order granting sole custody of the child to the father and denying the mother access pending further order.

The mother argued the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and erred in law by making an unrequested no-access order.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge made no reviewable errors, properly applied the best interests of the child test, and had the authority to order no access given the child's anxious attachment to the mother.

A family law trial addressing child support, section 7 extraordinary expenses, property valuation, and life insurance security following a contentious separation.

The applicant sought to impute income to the respondent after termination of employment and sought recovery of substantial extracurricular expenses for the children.

The court declined to impute income, finding the respondent was not intentionally underemployed and that his actual income history reflected his earning capacity.

The court limited extraordinary extracurricular expenses to a reasonable amount consistent with the family’s pre‑separation spending pattern and ordered proportional sharing, including orthodontic expenses.

The court also valued disputed household contents, tools, vehicles, and boats for equalization purposes and ordered the respondent to maintain life insurance securing child support obligations.

The applicant brought a motion to change a final family law order arising from minutes of settlement concerning travel arrangements, child support, arrears, and access.

The court permitted modification of the travel clause allowing the applicant to take the child on vacations outside Ontario without consent if an itinerary is provided.

The court declined to increase child support, finding insufficient evidence to impute higher income to the respondent despite inconsistent earnings history.

Arrears exceeding $16,000 were acknowledged but no repayment schedule was fixed at the time.

The access provisions were varied by removing weekday access while maintaining a simplified schedule for special occasions, with exchanges to occur at an access centre.

A spouse sought substantial spousal support following a short marriage after becoming permanently disabled due to multiple sclerosis and residing in a nursing home.

The Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines suggested support between $156 and $208 per month for a duration of two to five years based on the parties’ incomes and the length of the marriage.

The court considered the disability exception discussed in the Guidelines and the principles from Bracklow regarding non-compensatory support for a disabled spouse.

While recognizing the respondent’s severe disability and financial need, the court declined to award the requested $1,000 per month indefinitely.

Instead, it modestly exceeded the guideline amount and ordered $300 per month for an indefinite duration, subject to variation upon a material change in circumstances.