Sangar Duraiappah

This is an interim parenting motion concerning a ten-year-old daughter following the parents' separation in January 2022.

The case involves complex family dynamics including allegations of physical abuse by the father towards the seventeen-year-old son in April 2024, and the daughter's disclosure in August 2024 of sibling sexual abuse.

The mother sought sole decision-making authority and primary parenting time with a 90-day "black-out period" while the father sought sole decision-making authority and continuation of restricted parenting time for the mother.

The court rejected both proposals as contrary to the daughter's best interests and adopted a middle-ground approach, ordering joint decision-making with parenting coach support, expanded overnight parenting time for the mother, and therapeutic interventions including SAFE-T programming and family therapy.

The respondent brought a motion seeking the release of transcripts from two settlement conferences, citing contradictions in statements and language barriers.

The court dismissed the motion, affirming the strict confidentiality of settlement conferences under Rule 17(23) of the Family Law Rules and relevant practice directions.

The decision reiterated that transcripts are only released in "extraordinary circumstances" typically involving safety concerns, which were not present in this case, especially since all family law issues had been finally resolved.

The respondent, M.V., brought a motion seeking to compel the sale of the jointly-owned matrimonial home without the applicant, W.N.'s, involvement or consent.

The motion was granted in part, allowing the sale to proceed.

The court also addressed costs, ordering W.N. to pay $1,000 to M.V., a reduction from the requested amount due to M.V.'s courtroom conduct.

Additionally, a $25,000 equalization payment owed to M.V. was ordered to be held in trust, conditional on W.N. bringing a motion to change a previous final order within 60 days.

The applicant sought costs for an ex-parte motion where she obtained Certificates of Pending Litigation on five properties.

The court declined to award costs, finding that the urgency of the ex-parte motion was overstated, the applicant had not requested voluntary preservation prior to moving without notice, and the respondent acted reasonably by consenting to the certificates remaining on title once notified.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from Ms. Kabir's successful motion to dismiss Mr. Kalair's two motions to change prior consent orders (2013 and 2019) and his motion to have her found in contempt.

The court allowed Ms. Kabir's motion and dismissed Mr. Kalair's motions.

The parties were unable to agree on costs.

The court applied principles from the Family Law Rules, emphasizing proportionality and reasonableness of conduct.

Mr. Kalair's repeated failure to provide financial disclosure and his unreasonable refusal of Ms. Kabir's settlement offer were key factors.

The court also affirmed that Ms. Kabir's Legal Aid certificate did not limit the costs recoverable to Legal Aid rates.

Ms. Kabir was awarded costs of $28,116.66 on a full recovery basis.

The applicant father brought a motion for equal parenting time with the parties' two young children, while the respondent mother sought to restrict his time to alternate weekends.

The mother had previously removed the children to Prince Edward Island without notice and subsequently gatekept the father's parenting time upon their return to Ontario.

The court found that the mother's withholding of the children was not child-focused and that the children needed regular, frequent contact with both parents.

Applying the best interests of the child factors under the Children's Law Reform Act and referencing AFCC guidelines, the court ordered an alternating Week 1 and Week 2 schedule to ensure the children are not away from either parent for more than five days.

The applicant father brought Motions to Change seeking to terminate spousal support, reduce child support, and expand parenting time.

The respondent mother moved to strike the applicant's motions due to his persistent failure to pay support and comply with multiple financial disclosure orders.

The applicant also brought a cross-motion to find the respondent in contempt for allegedly failing to facilitate parenting time.

The court denied the applicant's request for a further adjournment, finding it would cause undue delay and prejudice.

The court granted the respondent's motion to strike the Motions to Change, finding the applicant's non-compliance with support and disclosure orders to be egregious and willful.

The court dismissed the applicant's contempt motion, relying on Voice of the Child reports indicating the children adamantly refused contact with the applicant due to his past conduct, and finding the respondent had made reasonable efforts to facilitate access.