Roselyn Zisman

The applicant father sought liberal and generous access to his 13-year-old son, a non-removal order preventing the respondent mother from travelling outside Canada with the child, and rescission of a temporary restraining order.

The mother sought dismissal of the application and to make the restraining order final.

The court found that the father was solely responsible for the estrangement from his son through a pattern of hostile, aggressive, and threatening behaviour both before and after a motor vehicle accident in 2017.

Despite multiple opportunities and suggestions to seek mental health treatment, the father failed to comply.

The court determined that access should be at the mother's discretion and in accordance with the child's wishes, and that the restraining order should be made final.

A family law application concerning custody, access, and child support following separation and criminal charges of assault and sexual assault.

The applicant mother sought sole custody with no access for the respondent father, while the respondent sought joint custody with unsupervised access.

The court found the father was physically, verbally, and emotionally abusive to both the mother and children.

Despite the father's acquittal in criminal proceedings, the civil standard of balance of probabilities supported findings of abuse.

The court granted sole custody to the mother, permitted the father to send letters, cards, and gifts only, and imputed income for child support purposes based on intentional underemployment.

A child protection application concerning a nine-month-old child born to parents with histories of substance abuse and incarceration.

The society sought extended society care with no access.

The father sought continuation of weekly supervised access.

The court considered whether an access order would be in the child's best interests under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, applying the holistic best interests test.

The court found that while the father's visits were positive in quality, they were inconsistent in frequency and timing.

Critically, a prospective adoptive family willing to adopt the child with her half-sibling was prepared to do so only without an access order.

The court determined that no access order was in the child's best interests, balancing the benefits of maintaining biological connection against the certainty of immediate permanent placement with a racially and culturally matched family.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion seeking temporary sole custody of the parties' young son and a restricted access schedule for the applicant father.

The father sought to restore the pre-motion shared parenting arrangement on a 2-2-3 basis.

The court found that the mother was the primary caregiver prior to separation and that the father's conduct, including leaving the child unattended in a car and on a doorstep, demonstrated serious lapses in judgment.

The court granted the mother temporary sole custody with final decision-making authority on major issues, while providing the father with significant parenting time.

The court also imposed a condition that the father not leave the child alone while in his care.

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

The maternal grandmother sought costs of $16,528.92 against the father and paternal uncle following a successful motion to terminate the paternal uncle's overnight access to the children and restrict him to day access only.

The court dismissed the motion for costs, finding that although the maternal grandmother was successful on the motion, the circumstances of a child protection proceeding warranted no costs award.

The court held that parents should be entitled to vigorously defend themselves in child protection proceedings without fear of cost sanctions, and that costs should only be awarded in rare and exceptional circumstances.

A temporary care and custody motion brought by the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto concerning five children.

The society sought placement of the youngest child (L.O.), born in 2018, in its care due to severe failure to thrive and developmental delay, and placement of four older children with their mother subject to supervision.

The mother opposed removal of the youngest child and sought dismissal of the protection application.

The court found overwhelming evidence of neglect, including the youngest child's severe malnutrition and developmental delay, and a long history of chronic neglect spanning multiple jurisdictions.

The court granted the society's motion, placing the youngest child in the society's care and the four older children with the mother under strict supervision orders.

A summary judgment motion brought by the Children's Aid Society seeking a finding that a child was in need of protection and placement in the care of the maternal grandmother.

The mother opposed the motion and sought dismissal or alternatively placement in her own care.

The court found credibility issues regarding the history predating the protection application and the circumstances of the child's placement with the maternal grandmother.

The court determined that the maternal grandmother's evidence, which formed the foundation of the society's case, could not be properly scrutinized on a summary judgment motion.

The court declined to grant summary judgment and instead ordered a focused trial to hear evidence from the maternal grandmother and the mother on the issue of whether the child is in need of protection, with disposition to be determined if a finding of need is made.

A costs decision arising from a motion for custody and return of a child.

The applicant (mother) sought custody of five children and the return of her 14-year-old son who had been removed from Toronto to Sudbury by the respondent (father) without consent or court order.

After multiple adjournments and temporary consent orders, the mother was successful on the motion, obtaining custody of all children including the son.

The court awarded costs to the mother on a full recovery basis, finding the father's conduct unreasonable though not rising to bad faith, and that the mother's offer to settle was as good as the final order.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion without notice for custody of a child born in 2018, seeking a restraining order and police enforcement.

The respondent father opposed the motion.

The court found that the motion should not have been commenced as an urgent motion and that proper case management procedures should have been followed.

However, rather than dismiss the motion, the court treated it as a temporary motion on custody and access.

The court ordered a shared parenting arrangement with the child residing with the mother on alternate weekends and Tuesdays, and with the father for the remaining time.

The court found that both parents were significantly involved in the child's care and that the best interests of the child required continued contact with both parents.

This trial concerned parenting arrangements for two children, ages 8 and 4, following the separation of the parents.

The applicant mother sought joint custody with the children residing primarily with her, while the respondent father sought sole custody with a shared parenting schedule.

The court rejected the Office of the Children's Lawyer's recommendation for joint custody, finding the parents unable to cooperate or communicate effectively.

The court granted sole custody to the father, finding him to be the more stable and reliable parent capable of making decisions in the children's best interests.

The mother was found to be emotionally impulsive, dishonest, and engaged in parental alienation.

A shared parenting schedule with fewer transitions was ordered, transitioning to a week-about schedule by September 2021.

The children were to remain in their current school.

No child support was ordered, with income imputed to the mother at $45,000 per annum.

This is a summary judgment motion by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking an order placing a child born in 2017 in extended society care.

The mother opposed the motion and sought either the return of the child to her care with supervision or placement with a friend.

The court found that the child continues to be in need of protection and that the only viable plan in the child's best interests is extended society care with no access.

The mother's inability to address her mental health issues, manage her finances, maintain a safe home, and consistently attend access visits over 17 months demonstrated that the protection concerns that led to the child's apprehension had not been resolved.

A default hearing brought by the applicant seeking enforcement of a child support order dated September 21, 2011.

The respondent was ordered to pay child support for two children in the amount of $753.00 per month based on an attributed income of $50,000.00.

The applicant sought arrears fixed by the Family Responsibility Office at $36,712.84 as of November 1, 2016, plus further arrears from December 2016 to June 2018, and legal costs.

The respondent claimed inability to pay due to disability and receipt of ODSP.

The court found the respondent was not credible, had failed to provide full disclosure, and had not met the burden of proving a valid reason for non-payment.

The court fixed arrears at $45,339.00 and ordered immediate payment of $10,000.00 with threat of 60-day incarceration, with a repayment plan to be determined at a subsequent hearing.

A child protection application brought by the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking a finding that four children (ages 10, 8, and 7-year-old twins) were in need of protection under sections 74(2)(b) and (h) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The society alleged the children were at risk of physical and emotional harm due to the father's history of domestic violence against the mother, inappropriate physical discipline of the children, exposure to high levels of parental conflict, and poor decision-making regarding the children's medical care and education.

The mother consented to the finding and the proposed disposition.

The father opposed the application and sought custody or alternatively a supervision order.

The court found the children were in need of protection and placed them in the custody of the mother with supervised access to the father.

The respondent father brought a motion to change child support orders and sought a paternity test, alleging he was not the biological parent of the child.

The mother consented to the paternity test, which confirmed the father's biological parentage.

The father sought to reduce child support and arrears based on claims of changed circumstances, including lower income, loss of driver's license, job loss, and medical issues.

The court found the father's evidence not credible, noting his financial disclosure was unreliable and his circumstances were substantially similar to those presented in a previous motion to change dismissed in 2010.

The court dismissed the motion to change and found the father had not met his onus to prove a material change in circumstances.

The applicant (mother) sought costs against the respondent (father) arising from a focused trial concerning child support for two young children.

The mother sought to impute income to the father based on his previous full-time employment and requested that he pay his proportionate share of the children's section 7 expenses.

The father sought to pay child support based on ODSP and minimal employment income.

The mother was completely successful at trial.

The court found that the father had quit a well-paying unionized job without securing alternative employment and had made minimal efforts to find work since leaving.

The mother served a reasonable offer to settle two weeks before trial, which the father rejected.

The court awarded costs to the mother, finding that the father acted unreasonably in failing to accept the offer and that the mother was entitled to costs under the Family Law Rules.

The applicant mother brought a motion for an order striking the respondent father's pleadings for non-disclosure and for child and spousal support based on imputing income of $95,800 to the father retroactive to October 2016.

The respondent father filed a cross-motion requesting income be imputed to him at $76,960 or lesser amounts and for specified Skype access.

The court declined to strike the pleadings, finding the father had substantially complied with disclosure requirements.

The court declined to impute income to the father, finding his actual income should be used.

The court ordered child support arrears and ongoing child support based on the father's actual income, and ordered temporary spousal support at the low end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range, finding the mother had established a prima facie case for entitlement on both compensatory and need bases.

The applicant mother sought sole custody of the child and permission to relocate with the child from Toronto to Ottawa to live with her new husband, a diplomat.

The respondent father opposed the relocation and sought joint custody with parallel parenting arrangements.

The court granted sole custody to the mother and permitted the relocation to Ottawa, finding that the mother was the primary caregiver since the child's birth and that the proposed move was in the child's best interests.

The court established a detailed access schedule for the father including alternate weekends and extended holiday access, and ordered child support and section 7 expense contributions.

The applicant mother sought an urgent ex parte order for custody of three children following separation from the respondent father.

The father challenged Ontario's jurisdiction, arguing that pending family court proceedings in Erie County, New York were the proper forum.

The court found jurisdiction under section 22(1)(a) of the Children's Law Reform Act, determining that the children had two habitual residences (Ontario and Erie County), with Ontario being one of them.

Alternatively, the court found jurisdiction under section 23 of the CLRA based on serious risk of harm if the children were returned to the father's custody.

The court granted temporary custody to the mother, ordered the children remain in Ontario, and appointed the Office of the Children's Lawyer to conduct a clinical investigation.

A trial concerning child support for two children (ages 6 and 4) following the separation of the parents.

The mother sought child support based on an imputed income of $47,129 (the respondent's average income for three years of full-time employment) and contributions to special and extraordinary expenses.

The respondent sought to pay based on his current income from Ontario Disability Support Payment (ODSP) and limited employment income.

The court found the respondent intentionally under-employed and imputed income at $47,129, ordering monthly child support and a 70% contribution to section 7 expenses.

A temporary motion for child support in which the mother sought ongoing child support, retroactive support, and contribution to section 7 expenses from the biological father.

The father challenged his status as a legal parent under the amended Children's Law Reform Act, arguing he was merely a sperm donor.

The court found the father was a legal parent with a child support obligation based on consensual unprotected sexual intercourse.

The court imputed income of $230,000 based on the father's failure to provide adequate financial disclosure and his pattern of concealing assets and income.

The court ordered temporary child support of $1,875 per month effective February 1, 2018, and granted leave to amend the application to include section 7 expenses.