Roselyn Zisman

The mother brought a motion for a temporary order requiring the child to attend Springfield Preparatory and Nursery School commencing September 2012.

The child, age 10, had been diagnosed with a mild learning disability and mild ADHD and was struggling academically in a French immersion program at his current public school despite receiving an Individual Education Plan and private tutoring.

The father opposed the motion, proposing an alternative public school with specialized resources.

The court granted the mother's motion, finding that the private school with smaller class sizes and a supportive teaching approach would better meet the child's educational and emotional needs, particularly given the public school system's historical inability to address the child's needs.

A motion by the father for a change in primary residence of the child from the mother to the father.

The child, age 12, had consistently expressed a desire to live with his father for nearly three years.

The court found that the child's clear, consistent, and mature wishes constituted a material change in circumstances.

After applying the best interests analysis under the Children's Law Reform Act, the court granted the motion, permitting the child to move to the father's primary residence while maintaining joint custody and liberal access for the mother.

The court emphasized the importance of respecting a mature adolescent's autonomous decision-making capacity.

Paternal grandparents sought temporary custody of their granddaughter, Maddison, born May 2, 2009, who had been in their care since July 2010 following an incident of alleged domestic violence between the parents.

The mother sought expanded access from alternate Saturdays to alternate weekly access, including overnight visits.

The court applied the best interests of the child test under the Children's Law Reform Act and the principle of maintaining the status quo on temporary motions.

The court found that the grandparents had provided stable care for nearly two years, while the mother had abandoned the child for over a year and demonstrated poor judgment and instability.

The court granted temporary custody to the grandparents and maintained the existing access arrangement of alternate Saturdays, rejecting the mother's request for expanded access pending the Office of the Children's Lawyer investigation.

Appeal from a conviction for careless driving contrary to section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The appellant was charged after stopping his tractor trailer abruptly in a live lane of traffic on Trafalgar Road while being signalled to pull over by a provincial offences officer.

The sole ground of appeal was that the Justice of the Peace failed to properly apply the test in R. v. W. (D.).

The appellate court upheld the conviction, finding that the Justice of the Peace correctly applied the law and that the evidence supported the findings of guilt.

A motion by counsel for the respondent mother to be removed as counsel of record in a child protection status review application.

The Children's Aid Society sought Crown wardship for three children (ages 11, 10, and 5) who had been in care for approximately 18 months.

Counsel sought removal because Legal Aid would only fund representation for a summary judgment motion, not for trial.

The court refused the motion, finding that the harm to the children and administration of justice from delay outweighed the unfairness to counsel.

The court emphasized the importance of timely permanency planning in child protection cases and noted that counsel could seek public funding pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in New Brunswick v. J.G.

A costs endorsement following a four-day family law trial on custody, access, and child support.

The respondent mother was successful at trial and sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The respondent had served a valid offer to settle prior to trial that was more favourable or as favourable as the trial outcome.

The court awarded costs in the amount of $3,599.98, finding that the respondent's counsel had submitted a conservative bill of costs based on legal aid rates, and that the applicant father had the financial capacity to pay despite limited resources and additional child support obligations.

The mother brought a motion for summary judgment seeking sole custody of four children, supervised access for the father, a restraining order, imputed income and child support.

The father opposed and brought a cross-motion seeking joint custody, mental health assessment of the mother, spousal support, and other relief.

The court found no genuine issue for trial and granted the mother's motion.

The father's untreated mental health issues, refusal to comply with court orders, harassment of the mother, and lack of involvement with the children supported sole custody and supervised access.

The court imputed income of $22,000 to the father based on his education, work history, and capacity to earn.

The applicant father sought to reduce his child support obligation and rescind outstanding arrears based on a material change in circumstances following his loss of employment as a probation officer due to criminal convictions for impaired driving.

The respondent mother opposed the variation.

The court found that although the father's income had decreased, he was not entitled to a variation because: (1) his job loss resulted from his own misconduct; (2) he failed to make genuine efforts to obtain alternative employment; (3) he failed to comply with court orders for financial disclosure; and (4) he had not acted in good faith.

The court imputed income to the father at his historical salary of $70,941.00 and dismissed the motion to change, refusing to reduce or rescind the outstanding arrears.

The applicant sought costs of a motion heard on December 2, 2011 and reviewed on March 6, 2012 regarding spousal support and other family law matters.

The respondent argued that the costs submissions were untimely and that there was mixed success on the motion.

The court found that the applicant was the successful party on the primary issue of spousal support and was entitled to costs.

The court fixed costs at $3,000.00 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes on a partial indemnity basis, considering the factors set out in Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules.

A costs endorsement in a family law matter involving custody and access disputes between biological parents.

The applicant father sought expanded access to the child, including overnight access, while the respondent mother opposed such expansion.

The court addressed costs for multiple motions heard on July 11, 2011, August 31, 2011, January 26, 2012, and April 3, 2012.

The mother was successful in opposing the father's motion for overnight access on January 26, 2012, and was awarded costs.

The court also addressed a wasted attendance on April 3, 2012, when the mother was unprepared to proceed with her disclosure motion.

A trial concerning parenting arrangements for a two-year-old child born to unmarried parents.

The father sought joint custody and equal parenting time with no child support.

The mother sought sole custody, specified access for the father, child support, and ongoing financial disclosure.

The court found that the mother was the parent best able to provide stability and consistency for the child.

The father demonstrated poor judgment and lack of insight into the child's needs, including missing medical appointments and failing to communicate with the mother about important parenting decisions.

The court granted sole custody to the mother with alternate weekend access to the father, imputed income to the father at $25,000 annually, and ordered child support of $200 per month.

The court also established detailed communication guidelines and transportation arrangements.

The defendant was charged with three offences against his wife: assault (July 1-31, 2008), assault causing bodily harm (August 18, 2008), and sexual assault (September-December 2008).

The trial was a credibility contest between the complainant and the defendant.

The complainant testified that the defendant assaulted her after discovering her long-standing extramarital affair, and later forced her to have non-consensual anal sex.

The defendant denied all allegations, claiming the complainant fell down stairs and that any sexual contact was consensual.

The court found the complainant credible and the defendant's evidence internally and externally inconsistent.

The defendant was convicted on all three counts.

This is a costs decision following a motion to change child support orders.

The respondent father sought to terminate his support obligation to his daughter and rescind accumulated arrears.

The applicant mother sought to maintain the arrears.

The court terminated support as of February 1, 2008 and rescinded all arrears, making the father the substantially successful party.

The court awarded costs of $7,000.00 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes, considering the father's success, the complexity of disclosure issues, the mother's delay and non-compliance with disclosure orders, and the mother's financial circumstances.

The respondent brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order for final sole custody of the child of the relationship.

The applicant opposed the motion, arguing that custody requires a trial with witnesses and up-to-date evidence.

The court found that the respondent had been the primary caregiver since the parties' separation in 2006, that the child was thriving in her care, and that the applicant and respondent were unable to communicate effectively regarding parenting matters.

The court granted sole custody to the respondent and dismissed the applicant's motion for expanded access pending trial.

The Children's Aid Society sought a temporary supervision order for a child with high-functioning autism who remained in the care of his mother pending a full protection hearing.

The society alleged the child was at risk of physical and emotional harm based on reports of inappropriate physical discipline, the mother's aggressive and confrontational behaviour toward service providers, her refusal to cooperate with the society, and her lack of understanding of the child's special needs.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the child was at risk and granted a temporary supervision order with specific terms and conditions, including prohibitions on physical discipline and requirements that the mother sign consents for information sharing with service providers.

The paternal grandmother sought to be added as a party to child protection proceedings brought by the Children's Aid Society.

The mother and stepfather opposed the motion.

The court applied the test from Children's Aid Society of London and Middlesex v. S.H., S.W. and D.R. and granted the motion, finding that adding the grandmother as a party served the child's best interests, would not unduly delay proceedings, was necessary to determine the issues, and that the grandmother was capable of putting forward a viable plan.

The grandmother was granted leave to file her answer and plan of care and to bring a motion for access.

A costs decision arising from a motion to change a separation agreement regarding child support and shared nanny expenses.

The respondent brought a motion to remove the applicant's counsel based on an alleged conflict of interest.

The motion was ultimately withdrawn after court attendances and preparation of materials.

The court awarded costs to the applicant for the wasted attendance at a case conference and the motion hearing, finding that the respondent's counsel unreasonably delayed raising procedural issues and failed to follow proper procedures to minimize costs and delay.

The respondent (father) brought a motion to stay the proceeding based on a separation agreement's dispute resolution provisions requiring mediation/arbitration.

The applicant (mother) opposed the motion.

The court granted the stay on condition that mediation/arbitration before Mr. Philip Epstein be commenced.

The respondent sought costs on a full indemnity basis, citing his success on the motion and two Offers to Settle.

The court declined to award costs, finding that the presumption of costs for the successful party was rebutted by the respondent's conduct, including failure to pay appropriate child support since 2008, non-compliance with financial disclosure obligations, and the financial hardship an award would cause the mother and children.

The applicant father brought a motion to expand his access to his young child to include overnight and full weekend access, based on recommendations from the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The respondent mother opposed the expansion pending trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the case did not fall into the rare or exceptional category warranting reliance on an assessor's recommendations before trial.

The court found significant deficiencies in the investigation and credibility concerns regarding the assessor's findings, and determined that the status quo should be maintained pending full trial.

A nine-day trial concerning custody and access arrangements for a child born in 2005.

The applicant father initially sought sole custody with primary residence at the grandmother's home and no access to the mother.

The respondent mother sought joint custody with the father and unspecified access to the grandmother and aunt.

The maternal aunt sought sole custody and primary residence with herself.

The maternal grandmother sought sole custody and primary residence.

The court found that joint custody among all parties was in the child's best interests, with the maternal aunt designated as the primary caregiver and decision-maker in case of disputes.

The court rejected the minutes of settlement signed by all parties except the aunt, finding that a more balanced arrangement was necessary to provide the child with stability while maintaining relationships with all family members.