Robert McQueen

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.

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.