Roselyn Zisman

This is a costs decision following a temporary motion where the applicant (mother) was successful in obtaining child and spousal support based on the respondent's (father's) imputed income.

The court awarded costs to the applicant, finding the respondent's conduct unreasonable due to a lack of complete financial disclosure and the filing of improper affidavits.

The court rejected the respondent's arguments to defer the costs decision pending an appeal and to reduce costs due to the applicant's legal aid status, affirming that legally aided clients are treated the same as other litigants for costs purposes.

This case concerns a focused trial in a family law matter between separated parents regarding decision-making responsibilities, primary residence, parenting time, and child support for their three children.

The court addressed the enforceability of Minutes of Settlement signed by the parties without legal counsel and unwitnessed, ultimately finding them unenforceable.

The court then determined the issues based on the children's best interests and the Child Support Guidelines, imputing income to the father due to intentional underemployment and lack of financial disclosure, and granting the mother sole decision-making responsibilities and primary residence.

The applicant father sought to incorporate a separation agreement into a court order, enforce his parenting time, and clarify/change certain terms.

The respondent mother sought the appointment of a parent coordinator (PC).

The court found the mother had unilaterally breached the separation agreement by imposing unwarranted restrictions and supervision on the father's parenting time.

The court appointed the PC but limited its mandate strictly to the terms agreed upon in the separation agreement, rejecting the mother's attempt to expand the PC's authority.

The court granted police enforcement of the parenting time given the mother's chronic non-compliance.

This is a Status Review application by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto concerning two children, AR (14) and AY (7).

The Society sought an order placing the children in the custody of their maternal aunt and uncle, with no access for the father and a restraining order against him.

The father, M.J., initially sought the children's return or liberal access, then proposed a further 6-month supervision order.

The court found an ongoing need for protection due to the father's incarceration (charged with the mother's murder), untreated mental health issues, history of family violence, and alcohol abuse.

Considering the children's consistent wishes to remain with their aunt and uncle and have no contact with their father, and the aunt and uncle's ability to meet the children's needs and provide stability, the court granted the Society's requested orders.

The trial concerned decision-making responsibilities, parenting time, and child support for the parties' child.

The mother had unilaterally removed the child from the jurisdiction to Florida, violating a prior court order.

The court found the father to be a credible witness capable of providing stability, while the mother was found not credible, impulsive, and lacking judgment, particularly regarding the child's education and relationship with the father.

The court granted the father primary residence and sole decision-making authority, with the mother having alternate weekend parenting time, contingent on providing government documents.

The claim for spousal support was dismissed, and child support issues were deferred for further submissions.

The Respondent (father) sought full recovery of costs for a Hague Convention trial concerning the return of the parties' child, which he won.

The court found the Applicant (mother) acted in bad faith by orchestrating the child's removal and misleading the father and court.

Despite the mother's financial circumstances, the court awarded the father $75,000 in costs, reducing the requested amount due to excessive hourly rates and duplication of work by the father's counsel, emphasizing proportionality and the deterrent purpose of costs in abduction cases.

The applicant father sought full recovery of costs related to a contempt motion where the respondent mother was found in contempt of prior court orders regarding parenting time and information sharing.

The mother's non-compliance led to the father having no contact with the child and unilateral decisions by the mother.

The court found the mother acted in bad faith due to her intentional breaches and efforts to alienate the child.

Despite the mother's financial circumstances, the court ordered her to pay $55,000 in costs to the father, emphasizing the seriousness of contempt and the need to sanction inappropriate litigation behaviour.

This is a Hague Convention motion brought by the father for the immediate return of the child to her habitual residence in Redmond, Washington, USA.

The mother had removed the child to India without the father's consent and subsequently moved her to Canada.

The court found that the child's habitual residence was Redmond, Washington, and that the mother's removal and retention of the child were wrongful under Article 3 of the Hague Convention.

The court rejected the mother's arguments that the father had acquiesced or consented to the removal/retention, that there was a grave risk of harm to the child upon return, or that the child was settled in her new environment in Toronto.

The court ordered the immediate return of the child to Redmond, Washington, and dismissed the mother's application for jurisdiction in Ontario.

The Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto brought a temporary motion within a Status Review application to vary an existing final order, seeking temporary care and custody of three children.

The children were previously in the mother's care under a supervision order.

The Society argued a long history of concerns including the mother's lack of transparency, non-compliance with orders, exposure to domestic violence, and failure to address the children's complex medical and educational needs.

The mother and father opposed, arguing for the children to remain in the mother's care.

The court applied the "best interests of the child" test under section 113(8) of the CYFSA, finding that a significant change in circumstances impacting the children's best interests required a change in placement.

The motion was granted, placing the children in the temporary care and custody of the Society with discretionary access for the parents.

The applicant father sought to retroactively decrease his child support obligation and reduce arrears from a 2014 consent order, citing a material change in circumstances due to a significant decrease in his income.

The respondent mother opposed the motion.

The court found a material change in circumstances, acknowledging the father's difficulties in obtaining financial disclosure due to his former employer's legal issues and his self-represented status.

Despite a lack of effective notice, the court exercised its discretion to vary child support and section 7 expenses retroactively to July 1, 2018, applying the Colucci framework.

The court recalculated child support based on imputed and actual incomes, adjusted section 7 expenses, and reduced the outstanding arrears.

The mother was found in contempt of prior parenting orders, leading to the father being deprived of access.

The court imposed a $5,000 penalty on the mother and continued a temporary order placing the child in the father's primary care with specific parenting time for the mother.

The court also addressed an urgent motion to change parenting arrangements, finding jurisdiction to make temporary orders in the child's best interests, and requested a section 112 investigation by the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The child's stated wishes were given little weight due to concerns about independence and potential influence.

The respondent (mother) brought a temporary motion for child and spousal support, seeking to impute income of $96,000 to the applicant (father).

The father, a self-represented paralegal, failed to provide adequate financial disclosure and exhibited inconsistencies in his stated income and expenses.

The court imputed income of $96,000 to the father due to his lack of transparency and the discrepancy between his claimed income and lifestyle.

The court found the mother was unable to work due to her own health issues and the significant care needs of their three children.

Child support and spousal support were ordered based on the imputed income, with the father receiving a credit for some direct payments.

The court declined to order further disclosure from the mother given the father's non-compliance.

This decision addresses a temporary motion and cross-motion concerning decision-making responsibility, parenting arrangements, child support, and spousal support.

The court granted the father sole decision-making authority and primary care of both children, maintaining the mother's limited parenting time with the younger child and no contact with the older child due to a documented history of abuse and the older child's expressed fear.

Income was imputed to both parents, and the mother was ordered to pay child support, while the father was ordered to pay spousal support at the lower end of the advisory guidelines, considering his significant section 7 expenses.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion to vary an existing access order, seeking unsupervised access for V.F. with his children S.F. and L.F. The motion was supported by V.F. and the mother (T.M.) but opposed by W.O. (father of other children with T.M.) and the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.

The court reviewed expert assessments regarding V.F.'s risk as a convicted child pornography offender and the mother's protective capacity.

The motion was dismissed, as the court found the Society had not met its onus to demonstrate that unsupervised access was in the children's best interests, citing concerns about the untested nature of the evidence, inconsistencies in V.F.'s disclosures, and the mother's lack of insight into the risks.

This trial addressed parenting arrangements and child support for the parties' two-year-old son.

The Applicant mother sought sole decision-making responsibility and primary care, while the Respondent father sought the same.

The court found the mother to be a more credible witness, demonstrating greater responsibility in addressing the child's medical needs and showing positive steps towards stability.

Conversely, the father's credibility was undermined by contradictory evidence, a history of neglecting the child's medical care, and ongoing criminal charges, raising concerns about the child's safety and well-being in his care.

The court granted the mother primary residence and sole decision-making authority for the child's health, education, and significant extra-curricular activities.

The father was awarded parenting time for three consecutive weekends per month and ordered to pay child support based on an imputed income.

The decision emphasized the paramountcy of the child's best interests, considering factors such as physical and emotional safety, stability, and parental cooperation, in accordance with the amended Children's Law Reform Act.

The respondent father brought a motion for contempt against the applicant mother for continuously breaching court orders regarding his access to their child.

The court found the mother's evidence evasive and contradictory, particularly regarding the child's health and her manipulation of a doctor's note.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the mother willfully and intentionally disobeyed the parenting arrangements in the November 9, 2020, and March 29, 2021 orders, including virtual and in-person access.

The court deferred the penalty phase of the contempt motion until after the upcoming trial, emphasizing that all other enforcement means had been exhausted.

The father brought a contempt motion against the mother for breaching prior court orders regarding parenting time and information sharing concerning their child.

The court found that the mother had intentionally failed to facilitate the child's relationship with the father, withheld medical and school information, and interfered with the child's communication with the father.

The judge determined that the mother's actions constituted willful disobedience and that she had not taken reasonable steps to comply with the orders.

As a remedy, the court ordered a change in the child's primary residence to the father, with the mother's contact suspended for 60 days, and granted the father temporary sole decision-making authority.

The decision emphasized the importance of upholding court orders and the negative impact of parental alienation on children.

The father brought motions concerning parenting time, decision-making responsibilities, child support, and spousal support for the child of the relationship.

The mother opposed and made various allegations against the father, including family violence and substance abuse, which were largely discredited by police and Children's Aid Society reports.

The court granted the father unsupervised parenting time and ordered shared day-to-day decision-making, with major decisions to be made jointly in urgent issues.

Child support was calculated based on the father's income, and arrears were determined with a reduced repayment rate.

The mother's claim for temporary spousal support was dismissed, as the court found the parties were not in a "relationship of some permanence" due to a lack of economic interdependence, despite having a child together.

The court rendered a decision on costs for two motions: a recusal motion brought by the Respondent, which was dismissed, and a temporary parenting motion by the Applicant and cross-motion by the Respondent, where the Applicant was largely successful.

The Applicant sought costs for both.

The court found the Respondent's counsel's conduct unreasonable, ill-advised, and non-compliant with court directions, particularly regarding the recusal motion and delays in filing.

The court awarded the Applicant fixed costs of $6,471.51 for the recusal motion and $20,000 for the temporary parenting motion, noting the Respondent's counsel's litigation tactics caused significant delay and complexity.

This temporary motion concerned parenting arrangements for 2.5-year-old twin boys.

The applicant, the paternal grandmother, sought primary residence, while the respondent maternal grandmother sought equal time.

The father is incarcerated and consented to the paternal grandmother caring for the children.

The maternal grandmother had unlawfully removed the children from the paternal grandmother's care.

The court validated irregular service on the maternal grandmother and found her allegations against the paternal grandmother to be untruthful.

Based on the children's best interests, the court ordered the children to remain in the primary care of the paternal grandmother, with the maternal grandmother having supervised contact, emphasizing the importance of maintaining a relationship with the maternal family while warning against future breaches.