Robert Sager

This case involved a final determination of parenting time, decision-making responsibility, and child support following the separation of the parties.

The applicant mother sought primary residence and decision-making, maintaining the existing parenting schedule, and child support arrears.

The respondent father sought a "week-about" equal parenting schedule, joint decision-making, and no retroactive child support.

The court maintained the status quo for parenting time, granting the mother primary residence and the father alternate weekend and midweek overnight parenting time, emphasizing the children's need for stability.

The mother was granted primary decision-making authority, subject to a mandatory consultation process with the father.

The court ordered the father to pay child support arrears and ongoing child support based on the Federal Child Support Guidelines, rejecting his arguments against retroactive support and undue hardship.

The applicant mother sought summary judgment for child support, arguing the respondent father was intentionally under-employed or unemployed and failed to provide financial disclosure.

The court imputed minimum wage income to the father, finding he was intentionally unemployed and capable of working full-time.

Child support was ordered based on this imputed income, with section 7 expenses shared equally.

The mother's request for retroactive support was denied to prevent immediate default.

In a child protection status review, the biological father (E.J.) brought a motion for summary judgment seeking primary care and custody of two children, S.J.M. and L.J. The Children's Aid Society and Six Nations Child and Family Services supported the father's request, while the biological mother (S.M.) opposed it, seeking the children's return to her care.

The court granted the father's motion for custody, finding no genuine issue for trial regarding placement, as the mother had not demonstrated sufficient insight or responsibility for past protection concerns.

However, the court determined that the issue of the mother's access with the children presented a genuine issue for trial and ordered it to be set for a trial management conference.

The Children's Aid Society of Brant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking continued protection findings for the child T.E.H., an order for deemed custody to the paternal aunt L.H., specific access orders for the mother and siblings, no access for the mother's partner, and discretionary access for the father.

The court found T.E.H. to be in continuing need of protection due to risk of emotional harm.

It granted deemed custody to the paternal aunt, L.H., prioritizing the child's best interests and Indigenous cultural identity.

The court made temporary access orders for the mother and siblings, but declined to make a "no access" order for the mother's partner or a discretionary access order for the father, emphasizing the court's obligation to impose specific terms and conditions for access.

The respondent brought a motion to change a final order to seek access to the child and terminate child support.

The applicant brought a motion to stay the respondent's motion to change on the basis that he was in continuous breach of previous court orders, including failing to pay child support and costs.

The court distinguished between striking pleadings before a final custody order is made and staying a defaulting party's motion to change an existing final order.

The court granted the applicant's motion, staying the respondent's motion to change until he pays $12,928.20 in outstanding costs and child support arrears.