Robert J. Spence

This endorsement addresses a costs application following a trial concerning parenting time.

The mother, who was largely successful at trial, sought costs on a full or partial recovery basis.

The father, self-represented, opposed any costs.

The court reviewed the principles for awarding costs, including the criteria for full recovery (unreasonable conduct, bad faith, or beating an offer to settle) as outlined in Mattina v. Mattina.

The court found that the mother did not beat her offer to settle, and the father's conduct, while not leading to settlement, did not meet the high bar for bad faith or unreasonable conduct warranting full recovery, especially given his self-represented status and efforts to resolve the matter.

Applying the factors under Family Law Rule 24(12), the court determined a partial recovery award was appropriate, considering the case's importance and lack of legal or factual complexity.

The mother was awarded $4,300 in costs.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion to place a 12-year-old child, B., in the temporary care of his mother, subject to supervision.

The father brought a cross-motion seeking temporary care of B. or increased access.

The court applied a flexible, contextual analysis for varying temporary care orders under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The court found that the father lacked insight into B.'s long-standing hygiene, social, and mental health issues, and had not adequately addressed protection concerns.

In contrast, the mother demonstrated significant commitment and a concrete plan to address B.'s needs.

The court dismissed the father's cross-motion and granted the society's motion, placing B. in the mother's temporary care with society supervision, while crafting an access order to foster B.'s connection with his father.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto initiated a protection application and sought temporary care of a three-year-old child after the mother terminated a temporary care agreement.

The father and mother subsequently filed motions seeking care and custody of the child under a supervision order.

The court dismissed the mother's motion due to concerns regarding her ketamine use and the child's physical condition upon admission to society care, finding her responses lacked insight.

The court granted the father's motion, placing the child in his temporary care and custody subject to society supervision, as it was deemed the least disruptive placement consistent with the child's best interests and protection, and the father's home was assessed as suitable.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking to suspend the respondent father's in-person parenting time with their two-year-old daughter due to concerns about the father's COVID-19 vaccination status and potential Helicobacter pylori infection.

The child has pre-existing medical conditions, including reactive airway disease/asthma.

The court found the father's one-line medical exemption note for a second vaccine dose insufficient and his evidence regarding hospitalization after the first dose lacking.

Prioritizing the child's physical safety, security, and well-being, the court varied the existing temporary parenting order, reducing the father's in-person time and imposing conditions for outdoor visits and H-pylori precautions.

This trial concerned parenting issues, including decision-making and parenting time for a seven-year-old child.

The father sought 50-50 parenting time, joint decision-making, or sole decision-making, while the mother sought primary parenting and sole decision-making.

The court found the father's communication abusive and controlling, and his credibility low, concluding that joint decision-making or parallel parenting would be contrary to the child's best interests due to the high conflict initiated by the father, his lack of cooperation, poor judgment, refusal to pay child support, and disregard for court orders.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making authority and adjusted the father's parenting time to be less disruptive for the child, while ensuring maximum contact consistent with the child's best interests.

This decision addresses the costs of a contempt motion brought by the applicant grandmother against the respondent father for failing to return their child as per a court order.

The court had previously found the father in contempt.

In this endorsement, the court determined that the father's actions, including withholding information about the child's whereabouts and unilaterally setting return conditions, constituted bad faith.

Applying Family Law Rule 24(8), the court ordered the father to pay costs on a full recovery basis, fixed at $5,000, to be paid immediately.

The respondent sought $4,000 in costs after the applicant withdrew her application for custody and child support following a paternity test that excluded the respondent.

The court, applying Family Law Rules subrule 12(3) and the principle of proportionality and reasonableness, declined to award costs.

The judge found no evidence of bad faith on the applicant's part in commencing the application and placed significant weight on the respondent's unsubstantiated allegations of deception made for the first time in his costs submissions.

The applicant mother sought to strike out or stay the respondent father's amended motion to change a final order concerning custody, access, and a restraining order.

The mother argued the father failed to pay outstanding costs orders and that his motion was devoid of merit.

The court found the father had not complied with multiple court orders, including payment of costs and production of documents, and that his claims of a material change in circumstances were insincere and contradicted by his own statements.

The court ordered a stay of the father's motion to change, emphasizing that while striking pleadings in child-related matters is rare, it is appropriate when there is non-compliance and a lack of merit.

This decision addresses a costs award following a successful motion for temporary spousal support.

The applicant mother sought partial recovery costs of $12,500, while the respondent father argued for no costs.

The court found the mother to be the successful party, noting her settlement offer was closer to the final order than the father's.

The court dismissed the father's argument that the mother's legal aid funding disentitled her to costs, affirming that legally aided persons stand in the same position as other litigants.

The court also determined that the father's pre-litigation conduct, while unreasonable, did not constitute "bad faith" for the purpose of full costs recovery.

Considering the reasonableness and proportionality of the costs sought, the court awarded the mother $7,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable monthly.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto applied for a secure treatment order under section 164 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act for the child SA, aged 13.

The mother supported the application, while the child and father opposed it.

The court first ruled that SA could not attend the hearing due to potential emotional harm.

After hearing evidence, including from a psychiatrist and social workers, the court found that all six criteria under section 164(1) for secure treatment were met: SA had a mental disorder, had caused or attempted serious bodily harm within 45 days, had a history of such harm/threats within 12 months, secure treatment would be effective, appropriate treatment was available at Syl Apps, and no less restrictive method was appropriate.

The court exercised its discretion to grant the order, committing SA to Kinark Child and Family Services, Syl Apps Youth Centre, for 180 days, emphasizing that this was the only way to provide hope for the child's healing given the exhaustion of all other less restrictive options.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary spousal support seeking $4,564 per month pending trial.

The respondent opposed the motion but offered to consent to $2,500 per month.

The court considered the applicant's need and the respondent's ability to pay.

The applicant had not been employed since 2018 and was receiving only Canada Emergency Response Benefit income of $2,000 per month, with monthly expenses of approximately $7,009.

The respondent received monthly income from a structured settlement annuity of $6,850 plus CERB of $2,000, with monthly expenses of approximately $8,748.

The court determined that the applicant had established a prima facie case for entitlement to temporary support and that the respondent had the ability to pay.

The court ordered temporary spousal support of $3,900 per month commencing September 1, 2020, with credit for rent payments already made by the respondent.

The respondent father sought costs following the dismissal of three unsuccessful urgent motions brought by the applicant mother.

The mother sought leave to bring three 14B motions on May 20, June 4, and August 10, 2020, all of which were dismissed.

The father claimed total costs of $23,995.

The court exercised its discretion to reduce the award, considering the mother's difficult personal circumstances (high-risk pregnancy with triplets), the COVID-19 pandemic context, the bona fide nature of her attempts to arrange parenting time, and the overlap between motion and case conference materials.

The court awarded costs of $10,000 inclusive of HST, payable at $1,000 per month commencing January 1, 2021.

The father brought a motion arguing that the continuation of the child protection application constituted an abuse of process due to concurrent proceedings in the Superior Court of Justice regarding a motion to change the divorce order.

The court found that while there was overlap between the two proceedings, dismissing the protection application would be inappropriate given the public policy considerations underlying child protection proceedings, the society's unique investigative role and mandate to protect the child, and the mother's inability to replicate the society's resources.

The court dismissed the father's abuse of process motion and adjourned the society's summary judgment motion sine die, allowing the Superior Court motion to change to proceed while encouraging the society's participation.

This is a costs decision following a trial on child support.

The applicant mother sought costs of $10,802 following her successful trial where the court imputed income to the father and ordered child support.

The respondent father argued for a reduced award of approximately $4,500.

The court awarded total costs of $8,700, comprised of $1,200 for a stayed motion and $7,500 for the trial, payable at $500 per month commencing October 1, 2020.

The court found the mother was the successful party, the father's behaviour was unreasonable including his failure to pay child support pursuant to a temporary support order, and the mother's conduct in making settlement offers demonstrated reasonableness.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order that a child be placed in interim care and custody of the society for six months, with access to the half-brother and his partner at the society's discretion.

The half-brother opposed the motion.

The court found that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The child had been removed from the half-brother's care following allegations of physical abuse and subsequent criminal charges.

The half-brother's bail conditions prohibited contact with the child.

The child had expressed a clear desire not to return to the half-brother's care and had formed strong emotional attachments to her current foster placement.

The court granted the society's motion for summary judgment, placing the child in interim care and custody of the society with access at the society's discretion.

The applicant mother sought child support from the respondent father for their three-year-old child.

The mother requested that income be imputed to the father in the amount of $57,699 annually, resulting in table support of $534 per month.

The father claimed to earn only $15,600 annually from part-time work and offered to pay $250 per month based on imputed income of $29,400.

The court found the father's evidence to be lacking in credibility due to numerous inconsistencies and contradictions regarding his employment history, financial situation, and efforts to seek employment.

The court concluded that the father was intentionally underemployed and had the capacity to earn the amount sought by the mother.

The court imputed income of $57,699 to the father and ordered him to pay $534 per month in table support commencing January 1, 2018, with arrears to be paid at $250 per month commencing September 1, 2020.

Parents brought a motion to set aside a final child protection order placing their child in extended society care with no access.

The child had been in society care since shortly after birth.

The parents did not attend the trial, which proceeded on an uncontested basis.

The parents argued the trial should not have proceeded due to an alleged stay, lack of notice, consent from the society and judge to set aside the order, conflict of interest by society counsel, institutional racism, and general unfairness.

The court dismissed all arguments, finding the parents had adequate notice, deliberately chose not to attend trial, presented no meritorious defence, and that setting aside the order would cause fundamental injustice to the child who required finality in the proceedings.

The maternal grandmother brought a motion to be added as a party to a child protection proceeding under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The child had been in the care of the Children's Aid Society for approximately 33 months, exceeding the statutory 24-month time limit.

The court dismissed the grandmother's motion, finding that adding her as a party would cause undue delay in proceedings that had already exceeded statutory time limits, and that her proposed plan was not in the best interests of the child.

The child had expressed stress during visits with the grandmother and had formed strong emotional attachments to his foster family.

The mother brought an urgent motion seeking sole temporary custody of the parties' seven-year-old daughter, a restraining order against the father, and a no-access order.

The father opposed the motion and sought a 50/50 shared parenting arrangement.

The court found the mother's evidence of sustained spousal abuse credible, including detailed photographic evidence of injuries.

The father's denials were undermined by his proven falsehood regarding studded rings and his evasive responses to serious allegations.

The court granted sole temporary custody to the mother with highly supervised access for the father, a no-contact order, and a non-removal order, finding that the father's violence and abuse rendered him unsuitable for shared parenting at this stage.

The applicant sought a restraining order under section 35 of the Children's Law Reform Act against the respondent following the end of a short-term intimate relationship.

The respondent initially challenged the court's jurisdiction, arguing the parties were not spouses or cohabitants.

The applicant presented evidence of persistent harassment including threatening text messages about contacting Children's Aid Society, unauthorized circulation of intimate photographs, surveillance at the applicant's residence, and continued contact despite explicit requests to cease.

The respondent, appearing self-represented, filed an unsigned and undated answer denying the allegations and providing an implausible account of events.

The court found the respondent's evidence lacked credibility and granted a final restraining order prohibiting all direct and indirect contact and requiring the respondent to remain 200 metres from the applicant and her children.