Family and Matrimonial Law - SCJ

This decision concerns a high-conflict family law re-trial regarding the relocation of a five-year-old child from Toronto to Ireland, decision-making responsibility, and parenting time.

The court found a long-standing pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour by the Respondent, Aamir Saleem Shipton, toward the Applicant, Kathleen Marie Shipton, including family violence, financial control, and isolation.

The court permitted the relocation to Ireland, granted the Applicant sole decision-making authority, and set out a detailed parenting schedule to ensure the child maintains a relationship with both parents and her multicultural heritage.

The decision applies a blended best interests analysis, referencing recent appellate and Supreme Court guidance on relocation, family violence, and the importance of stability and parental well-being.

This costs endorsement addresses the outcome of a motion in a family law matter.

The court orders the Applicant mother to pay full recovery costs to the Respondent father, citing the Applicant's bad faith conduct, including a history of litigation intransigence, violation of court orders, and vexatious proceedings.

The court finds the costs award fair and proportionate in the circumstances.

The court considered an application for summary judgment in a family law matter involving decision-making responsibility, parenting time, child support, and related relief.

The applicant mother sought sole decision-making for the child, supervised parenting time for the respondent, and other orders.

The court granted summary judgment on several issues, including sole decision-making, primary residence, child support, and communication through a third party, but found genuine issues requiring trial on others, such as the change of the child’s surname, s. 7 expenses, and a restraining order.

The court set out the legal framework for summary judgment and restraining orders, and awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.

This decision addresses motions for contempt and to strike pleadings brought by the respondent against the applicant in a family law proceeding.

The respondent alleged the applicant failed to comply with prior disclosure orders regarding income tax returns, ODSP application, and employment search records, and also failed to pay previously ordered costs.

The court found insufficient evidence for an intentional breach to warrant a contempt finding but acknowledged outstanding disclosure.

The motion to strike pleadings was deemed premature.

The court ordered the applicant to produce the outstanding documents and pay costs within 21 days.

Additionally, at the respondent's request, the applicant's ongoing spousal support obligation was terminated, and his share of section 7 expenses was reduced from 75% to 50%.

The contempt and strike motions were adjourned, conditional on the applicant's compliance.

This motion concerned the applicant's request for financial disclosure and an advance on equalization.

The court granted most of the production orders, including the respondent's 2020 T1 tax return, TD bank summary statements, Sun Life share valuation at separation, and most documents requested by the applicant's forensic accountant.

However, the motion for an advance on equalization was dismissed due to insufficient evidence regarding the necessity of funds and the applicant's inability to cover the costs.

The court heavily criticized both parties for non-compliance with electronic filing requirements, practice directions, and proper presentation of evidence, ultimately ordering no costs due to divided success and non-compliance.

The applicant father sought a motion for summary judgment to vary a 2014 parenting order, requesting sole decision-making responsibility and parenting time for their 15-year-old child, Dakota, with the respondent mother's contact at Dakota's discretion.

The applicant also sought restraints on the respondent's contact with Dakota's school and control over Dakota's important documents and travel.

The court found a material change in circumstances since the 2014 order, noting Dakota has resided solely with the applicant since 2020/2021 and communications with the respondent are stressful for Dakota.

The court granted most of the applicant's requested relief, emphasizing the child's best interests and views, and dismissed certain restraining orders due to lack of evidence.

The applicant brought an urgent motion seeking child support based on imputed income, a restraining order, and continued payment of household expenses.

The respondent sought an interim parenting schedule.

The court imputed income to the respondent for child support purposes, ordered the respondent to continue paying household expenses, and established a new parenting time schedule.

The request for a restraining order was denied due to insufficient evidence of reasonable grounds for fear.

The applicant father sought expanded parenting time and decision-making responsibility for his two children, and reconciliation counselling for the older child.

The court considered the best interests of the children, including the impact of historical family violence and the mother's potential alienation.

The court ordered increased unsupervised parenting time for the younger child, and immediate commencement of therapeutic reconciliation counselling for the older child.

The court declined to order joint decision-making at this stage and denied the applicant's request for security for costs, while emphasizing that prior cost orders must be paid.

The applicant brought a short motion seeking interim orders to vary existing final orders regarding decision-making authority for a child and to restrict communications between the parties, as well as leave to amend pleadings.

The respondent sought an adjournment.

The court found significant non-compliance by both parties with the Central South and Provincial Notices to the Profession regarding affidavit page limits, exhibit limits, double spacing, and timely uploading of materials to CaseLines.

Emphasizing the importance of adhering to practice directions and the proper allocation of court resources, the court adjourned the motion to a long motion, providing specific directions for future filings and reserving costs.

The Children's Aid Society of the Niagara Region brought a motion for summary judgment to place two children, A. (5 years old) and H. (17 months old), in extended society care for adoption without parental access.

The Society cited parental instability, substance misuse, and lack of engagement.

The mother (M.B.) and father (D.J.) opposed, arguing for a trial and asserting the Society had not provided adequate support.

The court found the children were in continued need of protection and ordered extended society care for both, noting that statutory timelines for interim care had been exceeded.

However, the court found genuine issues for trial regarding access for M.B. and D.J., as the Society failed to provide sufficient evidence that access would impair adoption opportunities or was not in the children's best interests.

Access for J.S.J.M. (H.'s father) was denied due to complete lack of involvement.

The respondent father brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the applicant mother's claims for retroactive and ongoing child support and section 7 expenses.

The mother had commenced an application in Ontario seeking to vary a Michigan Consent Judgment of Divorce that included child support provisions.

The father argued that the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction, asserting that the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act (ISOA) was the exclusive mechanism for varying a foreign support order from a reciprocating jurisdiction.

The court found that the child support provisions in the foreign divorce could not be varied or replaced by a provincial order in Ontario, as the case did not fall within the narrow exceptions to the general rule that ISOA is the proper route.

The court dismissed the mother's child support claims, concluding there was no genuine issue for trial regarding jurisdiction.

This is a costs decision following a 5-day family law trial.

The court found the Applicant, Lynne Baribeau, to be the more successful party overall, despite mixed success on various issues including child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The Respondent, Marc Baribeau, had credibility issues regarding asset valuation, while the Applicant's involvement of children was problematic.

Considering factors such as party behavior, offers to settle, and the proportionality of fees, the court awarded the Applicant $25,000 in inclusive costs, rejecting the Respondent's assertion of inability to pay given his higher income.

The respondent husband brought a motion to change a final order for spousal support, seeking to terminate his $1,400 monthly payments due to his early retirement and the applicant wife's increased income.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on both parties' increased incomes and the husband's early retirement.

However, the court held that the wife was still entitled to support given the length of the marriage and her economic disadvantage.

Spousal support was reduced to $700 per month for 12 months, and thereafter to $1 per year until the husband turns 65, at which point it will terminate.

The applicant, Tom, sought an order for the parties' 14-year-old child, Scarlet, to live with him in the United Kingdom and attend school there.

The respondent, Marie, opposed this motion and brought a cross-motion for interim child and spousal support, and s. 7 expenses.

The court dismissed Tom's motion, finding it was not in Scarlet's best interests to be uprooted from her established home and school in Toronto.

The court granted Marie's request for interim child and spousal support, and s. 7 expenses, based on the parties' 2016 incomes.

Marie was granted interim custody with final decision-making authority.

The applicant father brought a motion to change seeking child support after one of the parties' two children moved primarily into his care and he lost his employment.

The respondent mother opposed, claiming undue hardship and seeking retroactive support based on the father's previously undisclosed higher income.

The court found a material change in circumstance but imputed income to the father, finding his career change resulted in underemployment.

After considering the shared custody framework under s. 9 of the Child Support Guidelines and the parties' financial circumstances, the court rejected a strict set-off and ordered the mother to pay $750 per month, while also calculating retroactive arrears owed by both parties.

The Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order for Crown wardship without access for six children.

The children had been apprehended multiple times due to the mother's historic drug use, exposure to domestic violence, and deplorable housing conditions.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing she had a new stable relationship and a supervisory job.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the mother failed to demonstrate she had addressed the issues that led to the children's apprehension.

The court granted summary judgment, making all six children Crown wards without access to facilitate adoption.

Following unsuccessful motions and an appeal challenging two arbitration awards in a family law dispute, the successful party sought recovery of full costs totalling over $62,000.

The court considered the Family Law Rules governing costs, including the impact of settlement offers and the principle of proportionality.

Although the successful party achieved a result as favourable as his offer to settle, the court assessed the reasonableness of the total costs claimed.

Balancing proportionality, the complexity of the proceedings, and expectations of the losing party, the court awarded reduced costs consisting of $40,000 in legal fees plus tax and $1,333 in disbursements.

The applicant father brought a motion to change custody and access.

The court previously granted primary care to the father and ordered interim access for the respondent mother, who struggled with cocaine addiction.

The mother sought overnight access but admitted to a recent relapse and failed to participate in court-ordered hair follicle testing.

The court found that overnight access was not in the child's best interests due to the mother's ongoing substance abuse issues.

The court ordered continued daytime access, subject to the condition that the mother not be under the influence of drugs or alcohol, with the father having the discretion to cancel visits if he believed she was intoxicated.

Following a motion to change custody in which the father obtained sole custody of the child, the court determined costs of the proceeding.

The court applied the principles in Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and emphasized that costs serve to indemnify successful parties and sanction unreasonable litigation conduct.

The mother repeatedly breached prior court orders, advanced unsubstantiated allegations, resisted disclosure, and acted in bad faith, which significantly prolonged the litigation.

The court found the father's legal fees and disbursements reasonable and awarded costs on a full recovery basis.

The mother's financial circumstances and legal aid funding did not justify relieving her of liability for costs.

The applicant sought leave to appeal two interlocutory orders made at a family law settlement conference: one adjourning the conference sine die and another permitting the respondent to amend her pleadings to claim spousal support.

The court found that the settlement conference judge properly exercised his case management powers to ensure the complex corporate issues were trial-ready, and that the order regarding pleadings was purely procedural.

Finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the orders, the court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.