Sarah E. Mott-Trille

Following a family trial concerning divorce, parenting, child support, spousal support, and restraining relief, the court found that the respondent had committed serious family violence, including intimate partner violence, abusive discipline of the child, coercive and controlling behaviour, and direct exposure of the child to severe violence.

Applying the best-interests framework under the Divorce Act, with primary emphasis on the child's physical, emotional, and psychological safety, security and well-being, the court granted the applicant sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, and limited the respondent to supervised parenting time in an access centre and specified video contact.

The court imputed income to the respondent for child support purposes because of incomplete disclosure, awarded retroactive and ongoing child support plus proportionate section 7 expenses, and dismissed the respondent's spousal support claim.

A final restraining order was also granted based on objectively reasonable safety concerns.

The defendants requested an urgent case management conference because the self-represented plaintiffs failed to comply with a previously ordered timetable for Master's motions and sought broader relief than initially identified.

The court accepted the plaintiffs' explanation for the delay, which was due to an internet issue.

To ensure all motions could be heard together, the court vacated the previously scheduled dates, granted the plaintiffs time to seek legal advice, and established a revised timetable for the pending Master's motions.

At the sixth case management conference, the court addressed the scheduling of various motions proposed by the parties, including motions for summary judgment, undertakings, and further examinations.

The court granted a motion on consent to allow a plaintiff who had reached the age of majority to continue the action in her own capacity.

The court directed that the motions regarding undertakings and refusals be heard by the Case Management Master before any summary judgment motions are scheduled, emphasizing the need for effective case management.

The Applicant and Respondent, divorced spouses, disputed their date of separation, ownership of the matrimonial home (1 Glendale Avenue, Brampton), retroactive child support, retroactive section 7 expenses, and equalization of net family property.

The court found the date of separation to be August 1, 1993, based on a separation agreement, tax filings, and evidence of separate lives within the same home.

The Respondent's claim for a resulting trust over the Applicant's 50% registered interest in the Glendale property was granted, as the Applicant made no financial contribution and was only on title for financing purposes, rebutting the presumption of joint ownership.

The Applicant's claim for equalization was dismissed as statute-barred.

The Respondent was awarded $39,821 in retroactive child support, while the claim for retroactive section 7 expenses for orthodontics was dismissed as the parties were found to share the expense 50-50 and the Respondent had already paid his share.

This is a costs decision arising from motions brought by the parties regarding custody and access to their four-year-old daughter during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The mother sought enforcement of an existing custody order and requested temporary changes to limit the father to virtual access.

The father sought temporary custody of the child.

The court granted the mother's motion to enforce the existing order and dismissed the father's motion to change custody.

The court made temporary modifications to the access order, granting the father substantial parenting time including weekend access and midweek overnight visits, along with daily virtual access for both parents.

The mother was determined to be the more successful party and was awarded costs.

This fifth case management endorsement addresses several procedural matters, including the rescheduling of examinations for discovery after the plaintiffs failed to attend, the completion of mandatory mediation, the transition of a minor plaintiff to an adult plaintiff requiring an order to continue, and the status of demands for particulars and freedom of information requests.

It also sets out directions for potential summary judgment motions and schedules the next case management conference.

At a fourth case management conference, the court addressed ongoing procedural issues in an action involving self-represented plaintiffs.

The court directed that future examinations for discovery proceed orally rather than by written interrogatory due to complications.

The court declined to waive mandatory mediation and deferred the plaintiffs' request to schedule a summary judgment motion until they could properly frame it in accordance with the principles of partial summary judgment.

Various other procedural directions were made, including delegating certain discovery motions to a Case Management Master.

The applicant sought an order under the Hague Convention for the return of three children to Australia, alleging they were wrongfully retained in Ontario by the respondent.

The court examined habitual residence, consent, the one-year limitation under Article 12, and the grave risk of harm defence under Article 13(b).

It found that the family had a settled intention to reside in Australia and that the children's habitual residence remained Australia despite a temporary trip to Canada.

The respondent’s retention of the children after commencing custody proceedings in Ontario constituted wrongful detention, and no grave risk of harm was established.

The court ordered the children returned to Australia.

Following earlier reasons granting leave to file a late appeal subject to conditions, the appellant failed to perfect the appeals.

The respondent sought dismissal of the appeals and recovery of costs.

The court declined to consider an affidavit filed contrary to its earlier directions and found the appellant had not complied with the conditions imposed.

Considering the factors governing costs and the appellant’s conduct, the court ordered full indemnity costs in favour of the respondent.

The appeals were dismissed and the stay of the underlying orders lifted.

The responding spouse brought a motion to vary an interim spousal support order that required monthly support based on an imputed income of $60,000.

The moving party argued that a suspended driver’s licence and resulting unemployment justified reducing support.

The court held that a licence suspension arising from non-payment of support does not constitute a material change in circumstances.

Given prior findings of non-disclosure and credibility concerns, the court declined to revisit the earlier imputed income determination.

The motion to vary the spousal support order was dismissed.

The father sought leave to extend the time to file a notice of appeal from an Ontario Court of Justice order granting the children’s grandmother temporary access.

The motion arose after the children’s mother removed the children from Ontario to the Bahamas shortly after the access order and the father claimed he was unable to comply due to the parties’ separation and the mother’s unilateral actions.

The court reviewed the governing factors for extending time to appeal, including bona fide intention to appeal, explanation for delay, prejudice, merits, and the justice of the case.

The court found the father’s explanation for the delay not credible and concluded the evidence suggested he facilitated the children’s removal from the jurisdiction and obstructed access.

Nevertheless, in light of the children’s interests and the broader administration of justice, leave to appeal was granted subject to strict conditions requiring the children’s presence in Ontario during the appeal process and staying enforcement of the underlying orders pending appeal.

A custody and access appeal arising from a post-divorce dispute over whether an access parent could discuss and practise his religion with the children over the custodial parent's objection.

The Court held that the governing standard under the Divorce Act is the best interests of the child, not a freestanding universal harm threshold, though risk of harm may be relevant in assessing the quality of access.

The Court further held that ss. 16(8) and 17(5) of the Divorce Act do not violate Charter guarantees of religion, expression, association, or equality.

The appeal was allowed in part: the religious discussion restrictions were removed or treated as unnecessary in light of undertakings, the wife retained the matrimonial home, certain debt allocations and costs awards were varied, and costs against counsel and the religious society were set aside.