R. Sonya Jain

The applicant mother sought sole decision-making responsibility and permission to relocate with the parties' seven-year-old child from Innisfil to Brooklin, Ontario.

The respondent father opposed the relocation and sought primary residence if the mother moved.

The court found a history of high conflict and poor communication, largely driven by the father, making joint decision-making unworkable.

Relying on the Office of the Children's Lawyer's recommendations and the mother's history as the primary caregiver, the court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and permitted the relocation.

The parenting schedule was adjusted to provide the father with alternate weekends and shared holidays.

The court also resolved child support issues, setting ongoing support and crediting the father for past overpayments.

The applicant children's aid society sought costs of $10,094.86 following its successful defence of a motion brought by the respondent parents in a child protection proceeding.

The parents argued that no costs should be awarded against them to avoid deterring parents from defending against state intervention.

The court found this to be a rare and exceptional circumstance warranting a costs award against the parents, as they had brought an ill-conceived motion with no reasonable prospect of success following their own breach of a court order.

The court ordered the parents to pay costs of $2,500.

The parents in an active child protection proceeding brought a motion to vary a temporary supervision order to permit the mother and children to relocate to Alberta to reside with the father, or alternatively, to transfer the proceeding to an Alberta court.

The father had moved to Alberta for employment after being charged with serious sexual offences involving a former foster child, which had prompted the initial supervision order requiring him to be supervised around the children.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the father's voluntary move did not constitute a compelling change in circumstances justifying relocation prior to trial, and that the parents failed to provide evidence that the Alberta child welfare agency had been served or consented to a transfer.

The respondent brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss the applicant's claim for spousal support, arguing she had grossly repudiated their 50-year common law relationship by placing him in a long-term care facility.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial and utilized its fact-finding powers under Rule 16 to determine the spousal support claim on a final basis.

The court rejected the respondent's argument that the applicant's conduct was unconscionable under s. 33(10) of the Family Law Act.

Finding the applicant entitled to support, the court ordered the respondent to pay $722 per month in accordance with the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines to equalize the parties' net disposable incomes.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion to prevent the applicant mother from moving with their two children from Orillia to Midland, arguing it was a relocation under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The applicant brought a cross-motion to permit the move, characterizing it as a mere change of residence that would not significantly impact the respondent's parenting time.

The court found that the move was a change of residence, not a relocation, as it only added 12 minutes to the respondent's drive and did not require altering the long-standing weekend parenting schedule.

The respondent's motion was dismissed, and the applicant was permitted to move with the children.

The respondent estate trustee brought a motion to question the applicant's former family law counsel regarding the applicant's state of mind and receipt of legal advice prior to signing a separation agreement.

The applicant sought to set aside the agreement on grounds of duress and lack of independent legal advice, but opposed the questioning, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

The court found that the applicant impliedly waived privilege by putting her state of mind and lack of legal advice at issue.

The court ordered the applicant's former counsel to attend for questioning and limited the questioning of the deceased's former counsel to the circumstances surrounding the execution of the agreement.

The Applicant Mother sought a court order to relocate the primary residence of her three children to North Bay, Ontario, citing a housing crisis and eviction in her current location of Orillia.

The Respondent Father opposed the motion, arguing the Applicant failed to provide proper notice and raised concerns about her stability and the children's best interests.

The court found the Applicant's reasons for relocation compelling, particularly the lack of affordable housing and the Respondent's failure to consistently pay child support.

The court determined that the relocation was in the children's best interests, noting the Respondent's lack of a viable alternative parenting plan and his reluctance to take on greater responsibilities.

The motion to relocate was granted, and the parties were ordered to share transportation for the Respondent's parenting time.

The Dnaagdawenmag Binnoojiiyag Child and Family Services (DBCFS), the Respondent Mother, and the Respondent Father each brought motions to vary a temporary supervision order concerning the child, L.T.C., following the Mother's discharge from a mothering house due to dishonesty and a positive drug test.

The court found a material change in circumstances.

While the Agency and Mother sought to continue the Mother's primary care under supervision, the Father sought equal shared care.

The court, applying the legal tests for varying temporary placement orders, found the Father's plan for shared care to be more comprehensive and in the child's best interests, providing greater accountability for both parents and opportunities for the Agency to assess parenting capacity.

The court ordered a week-about shared care arrangement under the supervision of the Agency and both maternal and paternal grandmothers.

The applicant sought partial indemnity costs of up to $16,510.66 following a contempt motion and cross-motion regarding parenting time, while the respondent sought $5,000 in costs or that each party bear their own costs.

The court noted that there was mixed success on the motions and neither party beat their respective offers to settle.

The court rejected the applicant's argument that her modest financial means should justify a costs award against the wealthier respondent.

Given the mixed success and findings sanctioning both parties' behaviour, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The applicant mother brought a contempt motion against the respondent father for allegedly breaching three previous court orders regarding medical disclosure and a section 30 assessment.

The father brought a cross-motion alleging the mother breached orders by unilaterally suspending his parenting time.

The court found the father in contempt of the 2021 order for obstructing the section 30 assessment by demanding changes to the assessor's retainer agreement.

The court found the mother in breach of the 2019 order for engaging in self-help by suspending parenting time without evidence of danger to the child.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and the right to choose the assessor, ordered the father to pay the $12,000 retainer, and ordered the immediate reinstatement of the father's parenting time.

The Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order placing a three-year-old child in extended Society care for the purpose of adoption, with no access to the father and limited access to the mother.

The child had suffered serious, unexplained injuries as an infant while in the parents' care, including a fractured clavicle, broken rib, and subdural hematomas.

The court applied the unexplained injury principle and found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the parents failed to provide a consistent or medically plausible explanation for the injuries.

The court granted the summary judgment, placing the child in extended care with access to the mother limited to letters and pictures, and no access to the father.

The applicant brought a motion to change a 2007 child support order, seeking retroactive child support and contributions to the child's post-secondary education in a six-year concurrent degree program.

The respondent had paid the court-ordered amount since 2007 but failed to disclose his increasing income.

The court found blameworthy conduct by the respondent for failing to disclose his income and ordered retroactive child support back to 2014, three years prior to the applicant's effective notice.

The court also ordered the respondent to pay his proportionate share of post-secondary expenses for the first four years of the program.

However, the court terminated ongoing child support and further post-secondary contributions effective April 30, 2021, finding the 2007 order contemplated support ending after one degree.

The respondent's undue hardship claim was dismissed due to lack of credibility and failure to disclose assets.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection and an order for extended society care with access.

The respondent parents, despite multiple adjournments and warnings, failed to file responding materials but were permitted to give oral evidence.

The court found the parents' evidence lacked credibility and failed to present a viable plan of care.

Applying the summary judgment framework in the child protection context, the court found no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The child was found in need of protection due to the parents' substance misuse, domestic violence, and mental health issues, and was placed in extended society care with access.

The applicant brought a motion seeking numerous orders, including striking the respondent's pleadings for failure to comply with a prior disclosure order and for breaching an order regarding the sale of a boat.

The court declined to strike the pleadings, noting that both parties had failed to strictly comply with the prior order's deadlines and that striking pleadings is a remedy of last resort, particularly where parenting issues remain unresolved.

However, the court ordered the respondent to pay $5,000 in costs for his deliberate breach of the order regarding the boat sale proceeds, and set new deadlines for financial disclosure and the appraisal of the matrimonial home.

The mother brought an urgent motion seeking temporary decision-making responsibility and primary care of the parties' two children after the father travelled to Pakistan for two months without adequate notice.

The father brought a cross-motion seeking primary care and make-up parenting time.

The court granted the mother temporary decision-making responsibility due to the father's refusal to communicate.

However, the court declined to alter the existing week-about parenting schedule, finding insufficient evidence to change the status quo pending an assessment by the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

No costs were awarded.

The Society brought a summary judgment motion seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection and an order placing the child in the custody of his paternal aunt and uncle.

The mother consented to a protection finding based on emotional harm but opposed findings based on physical harm and the proposed access disposition.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the child in need of protection due to the mother's unresolved substance abuse and domestic violence issues.

The court ordered custody to the kin care providers with specified minimum access for the mother, leaving further expansion of access to the caregivers' discretion.

The Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services (Society) brought a motion for summary judgment to terminate an interim supervision order, withdraw their protection application, and dismiss the parents' Answers and Plans of Care.

The respondent mother and maternal grandmother consented, but the respondent father opposed, seeking access and custody for the paternal grandmother.

The court granted the Society's motion, finding no genuine issue for trial, emphasizing the children's best interests and their strong, consistent views to remain with their mother and not re-establish a relationship with their father.

The court found the children could be adequately protected without further Society intervention, particularly through a Voluntary Service Agreement with the mother.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking to increase his parenting time with the parties' three children to an equally shared schedule.

The respondent mother opposed, advocating for the continuation of the existing alternate weekend schedule.

The court, applying the recently amended Divorce Act, found it was in the children's best interests to allocate parenting time on a "week-about" shared schedule.

The decision emphasized that a status quo unilaterally imposed by one parent is not a strict presumption and gave significant weight to the Office of the Children's Lawyer report and the children's expressed wishes.

The Applicant brought a 14B motion seeking leave to file an affidavit containing a voice recording of conversations with the children, alleging the Respondent coached them.

The Respondent opposed the request and sought to file a responsive affidavit.

The court dismissed the Applicant's motion, finding the evidence in both affidavits and the recording to be unnecessary, unreliable, highly prejudicial, and of little probative value.

The court emphasized that parents should not gather evidence from their children and that the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) is the appropriate mechanism for ascertaining children's views.

An order was also made for both parents to refrain from involving the children in the litigation.

Following a successful urgent motion under the Hague Convention for the return of a child to Missouri, the applicant father sought full recovery costs of $18,929.20.

The court found that the respondent mother acted in bad faith and unreasonably by making unsubstantiated allegations of abuse, failing to return the child, and absconding with the child after the initial order.

The court awarded costs approaching full recovery, fixed at $15,000, and ordered the costs to be enforceable as support by the Family Responsibility Office.