Ryan Adam Aalto

A child protection status review application brought by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking final custody of three children to the mother with restricted access to the father and a restraining order.

The court granted summary judgment on the motion, finding that the father's conduct had not changed since the previous order, that he continued to engage in harassment and threatening behaviour toward the mother and children, and that the children's best interests were served by sole custody to the mother with supervised access to the father.

The court also granted a restraining order against the father prohibiting direct or indirect contact with the mother and children except through a designated supervised access facility.

This ruling addresses costs related to motions for temporary relief in a family law matter.

The applicant (wife) sought income attribution, child support, spousal support, disclosure, and life insurance.

The respondent (husband) sought disclosure and insurance security.

The court found a mixed outcome, attributing a lower income to the husband than sought by the wife, ordering child support, denying spousal support, and granting disclosure and life insurance.

Both parties were found to have unreported income and incurred significant legal costs disproportionate to their limited resources.

Despite mixed success, the wife was deemed the overall successful party, but due to the disparity between her claims and the orders, and the absence of an offer to settle, she was awarded only token costs.

The case involved a 22-year marriage breakdown, addressing equalization of net family property, retroactive and ongoing spousal support, and child support for an adult dependent child.

The court determined the notional tax rate for the respondent's RRSP, calculated post-separation credits, imputed income to the underemployed respondent, and ordered spousal support considering the applicant's unemployability and the respondent's caregiving responsibilities for their autistic son.

A mutual non-communication order was also issued.

The respondent father brought an application under the Hague Convention seeking the return of the parties’ children to Scotland, alleging the mother wrongfully removed them from that jurisdiction.

The court considered whether the children’s habitual residence had reverted to Scotland after the mother and children travelled there for a Christmas visit.

Applying established principles regarding habitual residence and shared parental intention, the court found no evidence of a settled intention to relocate permanently to Scotland.

The evidence demonstrated that the mother and children intended to return to Ontario following a temporary holiday.

The court held that the children’s habitual residence remained Ontario and dismissed the Hague Convention application.