Roslyn M. Tsao

The father brought a motion under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction seeking the return of the parties' two infant children from Ontario to Texas.

The mother conceded that the children were habitually resident in Texas but argued the Article 13(b) grave risk exception applied, alleging the father's alcohol abuse and erratic behavior created an intolerable situation.

The court found the mother's evidence, while credible regarding the father's problematic behavior, did not meet the high threshold for "grave risk" of physical or psychological harm or an intolerable situation as required by the Convention.

The court ordered the children's return to Texas, subject to certain undertakings by the father to ameliorate immediate risks and ensure the Texas justice system could address parenting issues.

The applicant, Vanessa Shea, sought primary care and sole decision-making for her 12-year-old daughter, Roxanna, following the sudden death of the child's father, Robin Shea.

The child had been estranged from the applicant since 2019 and was in the care of her paternal aunts.

Miriam Shea, one of the paternal aunts, brought a cross-motion to be added as a party and for temporary primary residence and decision-making authority.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding her unsuitable as a primary caregiver due to her lack of insight into the child's needs and her inability to prioritize the child's interests over her own.

The court granted the cross-motion, ordering Roxanna to reside with Miriam Shea, who was found to be a suitable and supportive caregiver, and to have day-to-day decision-making authority.

The court also declined to order immediate intensive reunification therapy, prioritizing the child's individual healing from grief.

The applicant mother brought a motion for interim relief seeking increased access to the children, the sale of the matrimonial home, and the return of belongings.

The respondent father opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion for retroactive and ongoing child support.

The court granted the mother's request for increased access, finding it in the children's best interests to spend roughly equal time with both parents.

The court also ordered the immediate sale of the matrimonial home to allow the mother to secure appropriate housing.

The mother was ordered to pay interim child support, including arrears, given her employment and shared custody arrangement.

This endorsement addresses parenting issues arising from a motion and cross-motion between separated parents.

The Respondent sought temporary parenting orders for their two children, R. and B., including primary residence arrangements and specific visiting schedules.

The Applicant opposed these orders.

The court dismissed the Respondent's motion, finding that, despite the urgency, it was not possible to make specific orders in the children's best interests given the high level of parental conflict, contradictory evidence, and the pending s. 30 assessment.

The court noted the children's giftedness and anxiety, and the lack of a safe, structured environment for inter-sibling visits.

The parties were urged to pursue mediation and communicate to resolve parenting and financial issues.

The Applicant brought an urgent motion for temporary child and spousal support.

The court determined the motion was urgent given the Applicant's need for accommodation.

The primary issue was the Respondent's income for support calculations.

The court rejected the Respondent's lower estimate for 2020 due to insufficient explanation and belated disclosure, instead relying on his 2018 Line 150 income of $2,256,040.

Based on this income, the court ordered the Respondent to pay $43,437 per month in temporary spousal support and $16,663 per month in temporary child support for one child, adopting the low end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range due to potential pandemic financial impacts.

The applicant brought an urgent motion for temporary parenting and child/spousal support.

The respondent initially opposed the urgency but later agreed to an expedited hearing for both the applicant's motion and an anticipated cross-motion.

The court found both parenting and support issues to be urgent, particularly given the children's living arrangements and the applicant's need for income to secure permanent accommodation.

The court scheduled the motions, set deadlines for material filing, and ordered the initialization of the parties' names in the style of cause.

The court also provided guidance on the s. 30 assessment and encouraged mediation.

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.

This endorsement addresses outstanding issues from a family law trial, including the precise calculation of retroactive and prospective child and spousal support, the set-off of support arrears against an equalization payment, and whether post-judgment interest should accrue on the equalization payment.

The court adopted the applicant's methodology for support calculations, which assigned full responsibility for the children's section 7 expenses to the respondent.

Retroactive support arrears owed by the respondent were set off against the equalization payment owed by the applicant.

The court declined to award post-judgment interest on the equalization payment, finding it just given the equalization payment's origin in a non-interest-bearing debt owed by the respondent to a corporate entity.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment to declare that Ontario is the proper jurisdiction to determine the issue of spousal support.

The respondent had commenced a divorce action in Pennsylvania but conceded Ontario's jurisdiction over child-related issues.

The court applied the test for summary judgment and found that Ontario had a real and substantial connection to the parties, as the applicant and child had resided there for over two years.

The court granted partial summary judgment, declaring Ontario the proper jurisdiction for all claims raised in the application, including spousal support.

The applicant mother brought a motion for the appointment of a parenting coordinator, interim and retroactive spousal support, and life insurance as security for support.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion to extend an access visit for one day to celebrate a religious holiday.

The court granted the father's cross-motion, finding no reason to condition it on the mother's requests.

The court dismissed the mother's request for a parenting coordinator, stating it was not required for an existing access protocol.

Interim spousal support was awarded to the mother at the low end of the SSAG range ($7,500/month), and the father was ordered to arrange life insurance as security.

Retroactive spousal support was reserved for trial.

The Father moved for interim access to the child, Arman.

The Mother brought a cross-motion for support, which was adjourned due to late service.

The primary issue was the Father's request for regular access in Pittsburgh, which the Mother opposed, citing concerns about the child's age, agitation, care by the paternal grandmother, travel hardship, lactation issues, safety, and interference with the child's schedule.

The court dismissed the Mother's preliminary request to adjourn the access motion.

The court found that the Mother's concerns were largely unsubstantiated or had been previously agreed upon in Pennsylvania.

The court ordered interim access for the Father from Wednesday to Sunday once per month in Pittsburgh, with exchanges in Buffalo and the Father covering the Mother's vehicular expenses, finding this to be in the child's best interests and consistent with a prior agreement in Pennsylvania.

The Father's request for 10-day access periods was deemed excessive for a young child.

The respondent husband moved to stay a divorce proceeding and set aside an ex parte Mareva injunction on the basis that the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction under s. 3(1) of the Divorce Act.

The court found that the applicant spouse had not been ordinarily resident in Ontario for the required one‑year period preceding the application and had instead been living with the family in China.

The court also concluded there was no real and substantial connection to Ontario sufficient to ground corollary relief under the Family Law Act.

In related proceedings concerning the parties’ children, the court declined to order their return to China despite concerns regarding their removal, emphasizing the need for a full evidentiary record before determining custody issues.