Roselyn Zisman

This is a costs decision arising from a motion to change child support.

Although the applicant mother's motion to change was dismissed on the merits, the court awarded her costs due to the respondent father's blameworthy conduct in failing to provide required financial disclosure, unilaterally reducing child support payments, refusing to contribute to special and extraordinary expenses, and refusing to engage in mediation.

The mother obtained substantially all relief sought through her comprehensive offer to settle.

The court fixed costs at $22,000 inclusive of HST, representing close to full recovery, to sanction the father's unreasonable behaviour and encourage compliance with court orders and separation agreement obligations.

The mother brought a motion to change the child support order of June 18, 2010, and the father brought a cross-motion for arrears and section 7 expenses.

The parties had two children; as of March 1, 2015, one child began residing with the mother.

The court found a material change in circumstances and determined child support obligations on a set-off basis.

The central issue was the income to be attributed to each parent.

The court imputed income to the father based on his incomplete financial disclosure and negative inferences regarding his capacity to earn, while accepting the mother's actual income for the relevant periods.

A mother sought disclosure of her children's therapy records in the context of a Status Review Application challenging a crown wardship order made without access.

The Children's Aid Society moved to dismiss the disclosure motion and to strike the mother's application as disclosing no reasonable claim.

The court dismissed the disclosure motion, finding that the children's therapy records were protected by case-specific privilege under the Wigmore test, that the children had significant privacy interests, and that the mother's request was speculative and lacked relevance to the issues before the court.

The court also struck the mother's application for failing to establish a prima facie case for material change of circumstances or to demonstrate steps taken to address the protection concerns that led to the crown wardship order.

Motion to Change regarding a separation agreement dated October 20, 2007.

The applicant (mother) sought financial disclosure from the respondent (father), retroactive adjustment of child support from January 1, 2012, and an order fixing arrears and special and extraordinary expenses.

The respondent disputed the claims and sought retroactive readjustment claiming overpayment of child support.

The court found that the respondent failed to provide required annual financial disclosure and drew negative inferences from his conduct.

The motion was dismissed as the applicant failed to prove a significant or long-lasting change in the respondent's financial circumstances.

However, the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's share of retroactive special expenses and costs were awarded to the applicant due to the respondent's blameworthy conduct in failing to provide disclosure.

A child protection agency sought summary judgment to make five children crown wards without access.

The children had been in care for over one year following apprehension due to neglect, domestic violence, substance abuse, and hazardous living conditions.

The father opposed the motion and proposed a kinship plan placing the children with his aunt.

The court found that the parents had failed to address the protection concerns, had not benefited from services offered, and that the proposed kinship plan was not viable.

The court granted the motion and made all five children crown wards without access.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion seeking an order of Crown wardship without access for five children.

The mother did not oppose the motion.

The father opposed, proposing a kin plan where the children would live with his aunt.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the children's special needs (including FASD), the father's ongoing parenting deficits, and the unfeasibility of the proposed kin plan.

The court granted the summary judgment, making the children Crown wards without access.

This is a costs decision following a seven-day trial regarding parenting time for the parties' child.

The respondent mother was completely successful at trial, obtaining an order for continuation of the temporary parenting arrangement while the applicant father's request for equal parenting time was denied.

The court awarded costs to the successful respondent, considering factors including the importance and complexity of the issues, the reasonableness of each party's behaviour, counsel's hourly rates, time properly spent, and the existence of settlement offers.

The court rejected the applicant's argument that costs should not be awarded and instead fixed costs at a level approaching full recovery, accounting for deductions related to prior cost orders and adjustments for duplicate counsel attendance.

This is a final custody and access trial following highly contested proceedings since June 2014.

The mother sought sole custody and the right to determine school placement for the four children.

The father sought joint custody and equal shared residential time.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, finding that the father's credibility was undermined by his failure to disclose employment, breach of court orders regarding disclosure, and his pattern of manipulating the children and disparaging the mother.

The court maintained the existing access schedule (alternate weekends and Wednesday dinners) and granted the mother discretion over school placement decisions, with the exception that Kayne would continue at Whitefield Christian Academy with the father bearing all costs.

An early status review application by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking crown wardship without access for three children exposed to significant domestic violence.

The mother sought return of the children to her care or, alternatively, an extension of time in care.

The court found that while the children remain in need of protection, the society failed to provide timely and adequate services to the family.

Despite the children's complex needs and the mother's past difficulties, the court granted a six-month extension of society wardship to allow continued progress in counselling and therapeutic interventions, finding that crown wardship was not yet warranted given the recent improvements and the realistic possibility of eventual reunification.

A child protection application brought by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking a finding that three children were in need of protection and an order for crown wardship.

The mother left two children unsupervised for multiple days while she traveled to Montreal to be with her terminally ill husband.

The youngest child was found alone in a park without knowledge of his address or last name.

The court found the children were in need of protection due to abandonment, risk of emotional harm from the mother's untreated mental health issues including paranoid delusions, and risk of physical harm from inadequate supervision and neglect of educational needs.

The mother refused mental health assessment and showed no insight into her conduct.

The court ordered all three children to be made crown wards with access to the mother and to each other in the discretion of the society.

The applicants, the maternal grandmother and maternal uncle, sought access to the respondent's two children following the death of their mother.

The respondent opposed the application and sought a restraining order, citing the children's trauma and the therapist's recommendation against contact with the maternal family.

After a case conference where the court expressed concerns about the merits of the application, the applicants withdrew their application and consented to the restraining order.

The only remaining issue was costs.

The court awarded costs to the respondent, finding that the applicants had prematurely commenced the court proceeding without waiting for therapeutic reports and had proceeded unreasonably despite clear indications from the respondent's counsel about the children's emotional state and the legal test regarding parental autonomy in grandparent access cases.

A focused trial was held regarding custody and access arrangements for a child born in 2009.

The father sought sole custody with primary residence and limited access for the mother.

The mother sought sole custody with primary residence and increased access for the father.

The court found that both parents love the child and are capable of meeting his needs, but significant concerns existed regarding the father's credibility, mental health, and the paternal family's ability to support the child's relationship with the mother.

The court also found concerns regarding the mother's past use of physical discipline.

Rather than making a final custody determination, the court issued a temporary order maintaining the status quo with the father as primary caregiver while ordering further investigations by the Office of the Children's Lawyer and psychiatric assessments for both parents before a final determination could be made.

A costs endorsement arising from a custody motion involving a child whose parents and siblings were killed in Afghanistan.

The applicants (maternal uncle and aunt) sought urgent custody of the child who had been residing with the respondent (father's nephew) since 2014.

The respondent successfully opposed the urgent motion and prevailed on the substantive custody issues.

The court awarded costs to the respondent on a partial recovery basis of $32,916, considering the applicants' modest financial means while recognizing their unreasonable litigation conduct and failure to accept a reasonable settlement offer.

A costs endorsement arising from a contested motion regarding access and ancillary orders for two children.

The respondent father was successful on all disputed issues concerning whether the applicant mother's partner could be present at exchanges and whether the father could pick up children at school.

The court awarded full costs recovery to the successful respondent, finding that the applicant acted unreasonably by insisting on her partner's involvement despite evidence of that partner's role in escalating conflict and despite the applicant's awareness of false statements made regarding the basis for the partner's bail conditions.

A focused Family Law Rule 1 trial concerning custody and access of a child born February 5, 2012.

The parties settled custody (sole to mother), child support, and mobility restrictions during trial.

The remaining issue was access.

The applicant sought equal time sharing on a 2-2-3 schedule; the respondent sought continuation of the existing temporary order.

The court found the respondent to be the more credible witness and determined that the current access schedule (Wednesday overnight and alternate weekends) was in the child's best interests.

The court rejected the applicant's proposal for equal shared parenting, finding that the child has significant anxiety and difficulty with transitions, and that the respondent is better positioned to meet the child's emotional and developmental needs.

The court also found the applicant lacked insight into the child's needs and had engaged in aggressive litigation tactics.

A summary judgment motion brought by the Catholic Children's Aid Society seeking statutory findings that four children were in need of protection and orders making three children crown wards with no access for adoption purposes, and one child a crown ward with access at the society's discretion.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing there were triable issues regarding her positive changes and ability to parent.

The court found overwhelming evidence of need for protection based on the mother's history of inadequate supervision, failure to follow through with services for children with special needs, exposure to domestic violence, and inability to manage children's behaviour even during supervised access visits.

The court granted the society's motion, finding no genuine issue requiring trial.

A focused trial concerning access arrangements for a child born in 2009.

The applicant (biological father) sought to terminate or reduce the respondent's (mother) supervised access.

The respondent sought unsupervised access to be gradually increased to alternate weekends and holiday access.

The child was apprehended by the Children's Aid Society in May 2014 and placed in the father's care in October 2014.

The mother had been exercising supervised access at APCO since May 2015.

The court found that while there was a positive attachment between the child and mother, the mother's behaviour during supervised visits remained problematic and not child-focused.

The court ordered continuation of supervised access with conditions requiring the mother to undergo psychiatric assessment and counselling before any future variation of the order.

The applicant mother brought a motion to strike the respondent father's pleadings, for payment of child support arrears and outstanding costs orders, and for security of costs.

The respondent opposed the motion.

The court found that the respondent had engaged in a pattern of non-compliance with court orders, misrepresentation, and manipulation of the court system throughout the high-conflict family law proceedings.

Despite the general caution against striking pleadings in family law cases involving children, the court determined this was an exceptional case warranting such relief because the Office of the Children's Lawyer was appointed to represent the children's interests.

The court struck the respondent's pleadings, ordered security for costs, and addressed a transportation issue regarding school drop-offs.

The applicant (mother) was found guilty of contempt of court for breaching paragraphs 14, 15, 25, and 26 of a September 29, 2015 court order.

Specifically, she failed to advise the respondent (father) of the time and location of a blood test for the child and arranged for the child to be seen by various doctors on six occasions without notifying the father in advance.

At the sentencing hearing, the mother apologized and stated she acted thoughtlessly and out of love for her son.

The court imposed a sentence focused on deterrence and behavioral change rather than financial penalties, given the mother's limited means and the fact that custody had already been transferred to the father as a consequence of her conduct.

This is a costs endorsement arising from a 15-day motion to change trial heard between April and August 2015.

The respondent sought full recovery of costs totalling $78,812.17, arguing he was successful on the motion and that the applicant acted unreasonably and in bad faith.

The applicant opposed the costs award, citing her limited financial means (Ontario Works recipient), the reasonableness of her conduct in making settlement offers, and the excessiveness of the respondent's counsel's time.

The court found the respondent was the successful party and presumptively entitled to costs.

After applying the factors under the Family Law Rules, the court awarded substantial costs of $68,552.00 (after deducting discretionary law clerk expenses), payable at a minimum of $500 per month, finding the applicant acted unreasonably throughout the litigation and significantly increased the respondent's costs through obstruction and refusal to settle.