Robyn Cecile Switzer

The applicant mother brought a motion for interim child support, spousal support, proportionate sharing of section 7 expenses, and interim disbursements.

The respondent father, a high-income earner, argued that income should be imputed to the mother and that spousal support should be minimized to equalize net disposable incomes due to high carrying costs and private school expenses.

The court declined to impute income at the interim stage, ordered table child support, and awarded spousal support at the low end of the SSAG range.

The court also authorized a partial release of funds from a joint line of credit for the mother's interim disbursements.

The appellant appealed a Family Court trial decision that found the parties were spouses under the Family Law Act and ordered him to pay spousal and child support based on an imputed income of $156,841.89.

The appellant argued the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors in assessing the relationship, awarding support, and imputing income.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no material misapprehension of evidence or error in law, and upheld the trial judge's credibility findings and support orders.

A motion to introduce fresh evidence was also dismissed.

The appellant moved for a stay pending appeal of a trial judgment ordering him to pay child and spousal support based on an imputed income of $156,841.89.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that the appellant failed to establish a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The father brought a motion seeking a temporary change in the primary residence of his two children (ages 8 and 10) from the mother to himself.

This was based on disclosures made by the children to their counsel regarding the mother's verbal abuse and excessive punishment.

The mother opposed the motion and sought the children's immediate return.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding that the disclosures, while concerning, did not amount to "compelling circumstances" to justify disturbing the six-year status quo.

The court ordered the children to resume primary residence with the mother, with protective terms regarding parental conduct and discipline.

The applicants, a same-sex couple, sought a declaration of parentage and primary residence of a child born to the respondents.

The parties had an informal agreement that the applicants would raise the child, but the respondents sought the child's return after four months.

The court found that the statutory requirements for a declaration of parentage under s. 13 of the Children's Law Reform Act were not met, as there was no pre-conception intent for all four parties to be parents.

However, applying the best interests of the child test, the court granted the applicants primary residence and sole decision-making responsibility, with gradually increasing parenting time for the respondents.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal several orders of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal from the order of Ramsay J. dated June 30, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding parties.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated December 9, 2019.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $3,500.

The respondent brought a motion to expand access to the child and to stay a previous costs order.

The applicant opposed, arguing no urgency and that the respondent should not be heard due to unpaid costs.

The court dismissed the motion to stay costs, finding no urgency.

Regarding access, the court found urgency due to the child's developmental stage and pandemic-related delays, and ordered a phased expansion of Sunday access hours, but denied immediate overnight access.

The court also ordered the respondent to comply with public health regulations related to his employment as a nurse.

No costs were awarded for this motion.

This ruling on costs followed a motion regarding custody and access.

The applicant sought costs on both full and partial indemnity bases, while the respondent sought partial indemnity costs.

The court dismissed the applicant's claim for costs for the period from September 11 to October 5, 2018, and entirely dismissed the respondent's claim for costs.

The applicant was awarded partial indemnity costs for the period from October 25 to December 15, 2018, totaling $14,048.28, finding the respondent's conduct unreasonable during that later period.

The applicant mother sought the return of her child to her primary care after the child was placed with the respondent father following the mother's temporary psychiatric episodes.

The father opposed, seeking to maintain primary care.

The court, applying the best interests of the child principle under the Children’s Law Reform Act, found that the mother's episodes were temporary and appropriately addressed.

The court emphasized returning to the pre-existing status quo where the mother was the primary caregiver, as the urgent situation had passed and the mother could safely resume care.

The father's attempt to change custody was deemed opportunistic.

The court ordered the child's return to the mother's primary care with a clarified parenting schedule and ordered both parties to cooperate with Family Connexions.

This is a costs decision arising from two motions in a child protection application.

The Jewish Family and Child Service of Greater Toronto sought orders preventing children from attending court and receiving a psychological report.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer opposed both motions.

The court granted the agency's motions.

In the costs decision, the court addressed claims by the mother and the agency.

The mother's costs claims were dismissed.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer was ordered to pay costs to the agency in the amount of $3,850 due to their failure to meet agreed-upon filing deadlines, which caused additional work for the agency.

The applicant child protection agency brought two motions in a protection proceeding involving two children (ages 15 and 12) arising from parental conflict following the death of a sibling and the parents' separation.

The first motion sought an order preventing the children from attending court proceedings.

The second motion sought to prevent the children from receiving a clinical assessment report prepared by a family therapist.

The court granted both motions, finding that attendance at court and access to the report would cause emotional harm to the vulnerable children who were already deeply immersed in the parental conflict and litigation.

The appellant appealed an order striking his motion to vary, arguing he had insufficient notice and should have been allowed to file materials.

The Court of Appeal dismissed this argument, noting the appellant had ample time and had failed to pay trial costs, a contempt fine, equalization, and failed to comply with disclosure obligations.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part to delete a requirement that the appellant prove payment of all support obligations up to January 1, 2014 before bringing a future motion to vary, as the ability to pay is the very subject matter of such a motion.

The appellant mother appealed a custody and access order that granted the respondent father generous access to their children, arguing that the father had attempted to kill her during a vacation in Jamaica.

The trial judge had found the mother's allegations not credible, relying heavily on hearsay evidence from a blood expert who testified at the father's Jamaican criminal trial.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred in admitting the hearsay evidence without threshold reliability, demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias through uneven scrutiny of the evidence, and failed to properly assess the best interests of the children, particularly regarding domestic violence.

A new hearing on custody and access was ordered.

The payor father brought a motion to change a 2004 consent order, seeking retroactive variation of child and spousal support based on a claim that his actual income was lower than the $90,000 imputed in the order.

The court found the father was intentionally under-employed and had unreasonably deducted personal travel expenses from his consulting business, maintaining his imputed income at $90,000.

The court allowed retroactive adjustments to child support based on changes in the children's residence and post-secondary attendance, setting the effective notice date at March 2006.

The father's claim for overpayment of spousal support was dismissed, but ongoing spousal support was ordered to be recalculated to reflect the mother's increased actual income since 2008.

The court also provided directions on the use of RESP funds and the children's required contributions to their post-secondary education expenses.