R. Sonya Jain

The applicant father brought a motion under the Hague Convention seeking the return of the parties' child to Missouri, USA.

The respondent mother had retained the child in Ontario following a visit and argued that returning the child would pose a grave risk of harm under Article 13(b) of the Convention, citing concerns about the father's parenting and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found that the child's habitual residence was Missouri and that the mother had wrongfully retained him.

The court rejected the mother's Article 13(b) arguments, finding her concerns did not amount to a grave risk of harm or an intolerable situation, and ordered the immediate return of the child to Missouri.

The Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that two children were in need of protection and an order placing them in the deemed custody of their maternal aunt.

The father opposed the motion, seeking a finding under a different subsection and an order placing the children in foster care.

The court granted the Society's motion, finding the children in need of protection due to the father's substance abuse, domestic violence, and failure to protect them from sexual abuse.

The court gave significant weight to the children's strong and consistent wishes to remain with their aunt and ordered deemed custody to her, with access to the father and paternal grandparents subject to the children's wishes.

The parties, who separated in 2017, brought competing motions to change a temporary shared parenting schedule and to determine which school their four-year-old child should attend.

Both parents sought primary residence or a change to the schedule.

The court dismissed both motions regarding the parenting schedule, finding neither party demonstrated a material change in circumstances or compelling evidence warranting an immediate change to the status quo.

On the issue of schooling, the court ordered the child to attend the public school in Angus proposed by the mother, finding it was in the child's best interests to attend a school closer to the mother's residence and to minimize exposure to parental conflict.

The Mother (B.RP) brought a motion seeking the return of her child, L.D., into her temporary care under the supervision of Dnaagdawenmag Binnoojiiyag Child and Family Services (the Agency).

The child had been removed in January 2019 due to the Mother's mental health and drug addiction issues.

Despite the Mother's significant progress in sobriety and treatment, the Agency opposed the immediate return, citing long-standing concerns, limited recent access, and two concerning incidents during prior overnight visits.

The ongoing COVID-19 crisis further complicated the matter, as the Agency had suspended face-to-face access and lacked resources to monitor overnight visits.

The court found insufficient evidence to immediately return the child, concluding there was a real possibility of harm and that a supervision order could not adequately protect the child, especially given the pandemic's limitations.

The child had been residing stably with the Maternal Grandfather for over a year.

The Simcoe Muskoka Child and Youth Family Services brought an urgent motion to change a previous order, seeking temporary care and custody of the child BS and addressing the mother's request for face-to-face access during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The child consented to remaining in the Society's care.

The court considered the mother's non-compliance with previous supervision orders and her inability to provide a specific, realistic proposal for safe face-to-face access amidst COVID-19 concerns.

Applying principles from Ribeiro v. Wright, the court granted the Society's motion, ordering temporary care and custody to the Society and limiting the mother to virtual access, with face-to-face visits contingent on the Society deeming them safe.

The applicant brought a motion to extend a temporary restraining order previously granted without notice.

The respondent opposed the extension, arguing there were no grounds.

The court found that a serious physical altercation had occurred between the parties during a vacation in Cuba, requiring the applicant to seek medical attention.

Concluding that the applicant had reasonable grounds to fear for her safety, the court granted the extension of the restraining order on a temporary basis.

The applicant sought an order extending the limitation period for her equalization claim under s. 2(8) of the Family Law Act.

The court found that the applicant had prima facie grounds for relief, that her delay was incurred in good faith due to honest confusion about the limitation date and modest means, and that the respondent would not suffer substantial prejudice.

The motion was granted, extending the limitation period to February 12, 2020, the date the application was issued.

Each party was ordered to bear their own costs of the motion.

The Respondent Mother brought a motion to find the Applicant Father in contempt of previous access and parenting orders, alleging breaches related to the use of a SCRAM bracelet for alcohol monitoring and failure to consult on major decisions or provide medical updates for their children.

The court found ambiguity in the interpretation of the access order concerning the SCRAM bracelet and supervision requirements.

Given the high standard of proof for contempt (beyond a reasonable doubt) and the paramount consideration of the children's best interests, the court dismissed the contempt motion.

It emphasized that simply reverting to old orders was not in the children's best interests due to the time elapsed and the need for further investigation into the Respondent Mother's Motion to Change and the Applicant Father's request for reintegration therapy.

The parties were directed to a settlement conference to explore options for resuming access and safeguards.

The parties separated after a 15-year marriage, leading to a high-conflict custody dispute over their three children.

The applicant mother alleged the respondent father severely alienated the children against her, while the father claimed the estrangement was the mother's fault.

Relying on a jointly retained section 30 assessor, the court found the father had engaged in severe parental alienation, constituting emotional abuse.

To serve the children's best interests, the court ordered a temporary reversal of custody for the two youngest children to the mother, mandated reintegration therapy, and implemented a step-up plan culminating in shared parenting.

The eldest child was permitted to determine her own residence.

The court also resolved outstanding financial issues including child support, section 7 expenses, and post-separation adjustments.

The applicant brought a motion for a final order noting the respondent in default and seeking relief on parenting, child support, and property division.

The respondent had failed to comply with previous orders to file materials.

The court refused to grant further extensions and proceeded with the motion.

The court made a temporary order for unsupervised access, ordered the respondent to pay retroactive and ongoing child support in accordance with the Guidelines (rejecting his unpled undue hardship claim), enforced a trust agreement regarding the sale proceeds of their home, and ordered the respondent to reimburse the applicant for half of the payments she made on a joint loan.

The applicant was awarded $20,000 in costs.

The respondent brought a motion seeking ongoing child and spousal support, lump sum arrears, enforcement through the Family Responsibility Office (FRO), and financial relief concerning offshore accounts.

The applicant, who was self-represented and had his pleadings struck due to repeated breaches of court orders and non-disclosure, did not attend the motion.

The court granted significant relief to the respondent, including temporary ongoing support of $5,250.00 per month, lump sum arrears of $64,889.16, and previous cost awards totaling $31,362.81, plus $7,000.00 for the current motion, all enforceable by FRO.

The court also ordered the applicant to maintain a $1,000,000 life insurance policy with the respondent as irrevocable beneficiary and granted the respondent sole authority and access to offshore accounts with Temple Financial Group due to the applicant's non-cooperation.

Additionally, the applicant was ordered to cooperate in obtaining a Get/Ghet.

The applicant brought a motion for a preservation order under the Family Law Act to restrain the respondent from depleting his assets, specifically funds received from a motor vehicle accident settlement.

The applicant alleged the respondent was recklessly spending the funds and relied on dated medical reports to question his financial capacity.

The court applied the three-part test for a preservation order and found the applicant failed to establish a clear claim for equalization or support, failed to prove irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured the respondent.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant mother brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a final order for sole custody and specified access based on a settlement reached at a settlement conference.

The respondent father opposed the motion, denying an agreement was reached and arguing that the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) recommendations were vague and circumstances had changed.

The court found that an enforceable agreement was reached at the settlement conference and that there were no genuine issues requiring a trial.

The court granted the summary judgment motion, awarding sole custody to the mother and specified access to the father in accordance with the OCL recommendations, finding it to be in the best interests of the child.

The parties brought cross-motions regarding the enforcement of a 2017 consent order requiring the sale of three assets: a jointly owned cottage, and the respondent's business and commercial property.

The applicant sought the appointment of a Receiver/Manager to sell all three assets due to the respondent's alleged failure to sell them.

The court declined to appoint a receiver for the cottage, ordering the applicant to list it immediately.

However, the court appointed a Receiver/Manager for the business and commercial property, finding special circumstances existed because the applicant had no other means to force the sale and the respondent lacked incentive to sell.

The Society brought a motion for a temporary care order to place the child in the care of the paternal grandmother, with supervised access for the parents.

The parents sought the return of the child to their care subject to supervision.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the child would suffer harm if returned to the parents due to ongoing conflict and volatility.

The court ordered the child to remain in the temporary care of the paternal grandmother but directed the Society to immediately expand the parents' supervised access, with a structured plan to progress to unsupervised access if conditions were met.

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 deemed joint custody of the parents, with primary residence to the father.

The mother opposed the motion and sought an adjournment, which was denied.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, noting the child's chronic school absenteeism while in the mother's care and the mother's lack of insight into the emotional harm caused by the absenteeism and parental conflict.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the child in need of protection and ordering primary residence to the father with specified access to the mother.

The Simcoe Muskoka Child Youth and Family Services (the Society) brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order finding the child, L.M., in need of protection and placing him in extended Society care with no access for the parents, for the purpose of adoption.

The respondent parents, K.R. (Mother) and M.M. (Father), opposed the motion, arguing that there were genuine issues requiring a trial and seeking expanded access.

The court, exercising exceptional caution due to the Charter implications in child protection cases, allowed limited oral evidence and cross-examination of the parenting capacity assessor.

The court found that the parents, both with significant cognitive and emotional limitations and a history of non-cooperation, had not demonstrated any measurable improvement or ability to provide "good enough" parenting.

The assessment concluded no attachment relationship existed between L.M. and either parent, and severing the relationship would have no negative consequences for the child.

The court granted the Society's motion, finding L.M. in need of protection and ordering extended society care with no access for the parents, for the purpose of adoption, subject to sibling access.

This ruling on costs followed a 7-day bifurcated trial where the applicant was entirely successful on the issues of marriage validity, spousal status for support and equalization, and valuation date.

The applicant sought costs approaching full recovery for the entire proceeding since 2014.

The respondent failed to provide costs submissions and did not respond to the applicant's offer to settle.

The court found the respondent acted unreasonably and in bad faith throughout the litigation, including delaying proceedings, selling the matrimonial home without the applicant's knowledge, making false declarations, attempting to mislead the court, and being disrespectful.

Consequently, the court awarded the applicant full recovery costs from the date of her offer to settle and costs approaching full recovery for the period preceding the offer, totaling $100,973.65, to be paid forthwith and secured as a charge against the respondent's residence.

This case involved two long motions in a family law proceeding, with mutual allegations of non-compliance with existing orders and the Family Law Rules.

The applicant sought to terminate spousal support, dismiss a nanny, and have expenses paid from matrimonial home proceeds or offshore accounts.

The respondent sought to strike the applicant's pleadings for breaches of court orders and to vary an order to obtain loan financing from offshore insurance policies.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, found the applicant in breach of multiple orders, and granted the respondent's motion in part, ordering the applicant to remedy payment and disclosure breaches within 60 days and permitting the respondent to obtain $100,000 CAD in loan financing from offshore policies.

The matter was ordered to be case managed.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a prior custody order, seeking joint custody and increased access for their three children.

The applicant mother sought sole custody and supervised access.

The court found a material change in circumstances, including the respondent's past substance abuse, mental health issues, and current terminal illness, as well as the children's strong resistance to unsupervised access.

The court prioritized the children's best interests, granting the applicant sole custody of the two younger children and ordering ongoing supervised access for the respondent, while dismissing the respondent's motion.