Roselyn Zisman

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.

The Jewish Family and Child Service of Greater Toronto (JFCS) brought a motion to appoint amicus curiae in a child protection proceeding concerning a 2-year-old child.

The respondent mother, N.D., had a history of mental health issues, inconsistent access, and had twice terminated counsel, indicating a desire to self-represent despite the society seeking permanent care and adoption.

The court considered the complex nature of child protection cases, the serious relief sought, and the mother's inability to maintain legal representation.

The motion was granted, and Tammy Law was appointed as amicus curiae to assist the court, with specific duties outlined, even if the mother later retained counsel.

The payor brought a motion to terminate or suspend a temporary default order requiring him to pay $5,000 per month in spousal support.

The payor argued a material change in circumstances due to a decrease in income and medical issues preventing full-time work.

The court found the payor lacked credibility, failed to provide full and frank financial disclosure, and that his alleged income reduction and medical issues either predated the temporary order or were a result of his own misconduct.

The motion was dismissed, and the payor was ordered to continue paying $5,000 per month or face 5 days in jail per default.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a 2004 child support order, seeking retroactive child support and reimbursement for the child's post-secondary education expenses.

The court applied the principles from D.B.S. and Michel v. Graydon, finding the mother's delay in bringing the motion reasonable due to fear of violence, lack of contact information, and incorrect legal advice.

The respondent father was found to have engaged in blameworthy conduct by failing to disclose significant income increases for over a decade and underpaying child support.

The court ordered the father to pay retroactive child support from 2008 and contribute to post-secondary expenses, discrediting his claims of prior contributions as gifts.

The applicant father brought a motion for the return of the child to the Greater Toronto Area and for primary care, after the respondent mother unilaterally relocated to London, Ontario in contravention of a temporary non-removal order.

The court addressed several evidentiary issues, including the admissibility of reply affidavits and hearsay statements.

Applying the Gordon v. Goertz and Plumley frameworks, the court found no compelling reason to sanction the mother's unilateral move on a temporary basis.

Considering the mother's defiance of court orders and misrepresentations, the court determined it was in the child's best interests to be placed in the primary care of the father pending trial, with the mother receiving alternate weekend access.

The mother was also ordered to disclose her current address.

The parties separated following an incident where the mother was charged with assaulting the father.

The child remained in the father's primary care for over a year.

At trial, both parties sought sole custody.

The father also sought to relocate outside of Toronto and alleged the mother's mental health issues impaired her parenting ability.

The court found the mother's mental health was stable and well-managed, and that the father's relocation plan was not child-focused and disregarded the mother's role.

The court granted sole custody and primary residence to the mother, with specified parenting time for the father.

The court also imputed income to the father and ordered him to pay child support and retroactive spousal support, while suspending ongoing spousal support due to his pandemic-reduced income.

The respondent (mother) brought a motion for the judge to recuse herself from hearing further matters in the case, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant (father) had filed an application seeking the return of a child to Ontario and to prevent the mother from removing the child without his consent.

The mother had taken the child to Ghana for five months without the father's consent and subsequently moved to Edmonton, Alberta.

The judge had made several orders including placing the child in the father's care pending the substantive motion.

The mother alleged bias based on the judge reviewing all materials despite her adjournment request, making findings of fact against her, denying procedural fairness, and making subsequent orders to enforce compliance.

The judge dismissed the recusal motion, finding that the mother had not met the high burden of establishing a reasonable apprehension of bias.

This is a Status Review Application under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act involving three children with special needs who have been in the care of the Children's Aid Society of Toronto.

The court found that all three children remain at risk of physical harm due to the father's serious and long-standing alcohol addiction, his inability to maintain sobriety, his lack of honesty and cooperation with the society and community supports, and allegations of inappropriate physical discipline.

The court ordered that one child be placed in extended care of the society and the other two children be placed in the custody of their paternal aunt, with access arrangements to be supervised.

This is a costs decision in a child protection proceeding under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The respondent mother and father sought costs of $5,819.50 against the Catholic Children's Aid Society following a motion for disclosure of case notes from a meeting between society counsel, society staff, and doctors from the Hospital for Sick Children.

The society initially claimed litigation privilege over the notes but waived privilege prior to the hearing, rendering the motion moot.

The court dismissed the costs claim, finding that the society acted reasonably in claiming privilege, provided appropriate disclosure to the parents through a subsequent meeting with medical personnel, and that the parents' counsel became unnecessarily fixated on the privileged meeting and engaged in inappropriate conduct toward society counsel.

A motion by the respondent father (VF) to split a child protection status review application into two separate cases was dismissed.

The application involved three children with two different fathers and a common mother.

VF sought to separate the case involving his child from the case involving the other father's children, citing privacy concerns regarding his criminal history involving child pornography convictions.

The court found that splitting the cases would not result in fairness to all parties, would not protect the interests of all children, and would not save time and expense.

The central issue of VF's criminal convictions, rehabilitation, and ongoing risk to all children required unified proceedings.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society brought a motion under section 14B of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act to suspend the running of time on a six-month supervision order by three weeks.

The order had been made on March 11, 2020, placing two children with their mother and one child in the temporary care of the society.

A Status Review Application hearing was scheduled for September 29, 2020, which exceeded the six-month supervision period by three weeks.

The court granted the motion, finding that the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act applied to child protection proceedings and that it was in the best interests of the children that the society not lose jurisdiction due to an apparent administrative error.

The Status Review Application was made effective as of September 29, 2020, and the matter was adjourned to December 2, 2020 for a case conference.

The applicant mother brought a motion to vary a temporary shared parenting arrangement (2-2-3 schedule) and to obtain decision-making authority regarding the child's school attendance (in-person versus online).

The respondent father opposed the variation and sought to maintain the shared schedule while requiring online schooling.

The court found that the father had emotionally abused the child by coercing her to make false allegations of physical abuse against the mother and her family.

The court granted the mother primary residence, restricted the father's parenting time to alternate weekends, granted the mother exclusive decision-making authority over school attendance and medical/counselling decisions, and imposed a police enforcement clause due to the father's history of breaching court orders.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion to change child custody and parenting arrangements.

The father sought costs on a full indemnity basis of $18,826.65 after the mother's motion to change was settled on terms substantially mirroring his offer to settle.

The mother initially failed to file responding costs submissions, claiming court staff told her she could not file.

The court set aside the initial costs order to allow the mother to respond.

After reviewing both parties' submissions, the court upheld the original costs award of $8,644.00, finding the mother acted unreasonably in commencing and continuing ill-conceived litigation without establishing a material change in circumstances, while the father acted reasonably throughout and served a timely offer to settle.

A temporary motion concerning parenting arrangements and relocation of a child.

The applicant, the child's step-grandmother, sought custody and permission to relocate with the child from Toronto to Fonthill, Ontario.

The respondent, the child's biological mother, opposed the relocation and sought expanded access.

The court granted the applicant temporary custody and permission to relocate, finding that the applicant had provided stable care for two years and that the move would not necessarily disrupt the mother's relationship with the child.

The court ordered supervised parenting time for the mother with specific access arrangements adapted to the new location.

The applicant (father) sought costs on a full indemnity basis in the amount of $18,826.65 following a motion to change brought by the respondent (mother) that was settled at a case conference.

The father argued he was successful, had served an offer to settle, and the mother behaved unreasonably causing unnecessary legal costs.

The court found the father acted reasonably and the mother's motion was ill-conceived and without legal basis.

However, the court declined to award full recovery, instead ordering costs of $8,644.00, payable by November 30, 2020.

The court considered proportionality, reasonableness, and the mother's ability to pay, and limited recovery to time spent on matters not related to specific procedural steps and the unnecessary case conference attendance.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion to vary a temporary care and custody order placing a three-year-old child with the maternal grandfather.

The motion was prompted by serious allegations of sexual abuse against the grandfather and domestic violence.

The maternal grandmother sought placement of the child in her care.

The court found a material change in circumstances and determined that placement with the society was in the child's best interests, citing the grandmother's lack of protective capacity, her historical pattern of abandonment, and her failure to disclose known abuse allegations to the society.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society brought a motion under section 116(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act to vary a December 10, 2018 order placing a 12-year-old child in the mother's care.

The society sought to place the child in its temporary care and custody.

The mother opposed the motion and sought to retain custody or alternatively place the child with her sister (the maternal aunt).

The court found that the mother had breached substantially all terms of the supervision order, including failing to maintain stable housing, refusing to sign consents for the society to communicate with medical professionals, and failing to cooperate with the society.

The court determined that the child's best interests required removal from the mother's care and granted the society's motion for temporary custody with access in the society's discretion.

The society was directed to investigate a kinship placement with the maternal aunt.