Family and Matrimonial Law - SCJ

The Applicant brought a motion seeking sole decision-making, primary parenting, leave to travel with the children without the Respondent's consent, and retroactive child support based on an imputed income.

The court granted the Applicant sole decision-making, primary parenting, and the ability to travel without the Respondent's consent, finding these to be in the children's best interests based on uncontested evidence and an OCL report.

However, the request for child support based on an imputed income of $60,000 was dismissed without prejudice due to insufficient evidence, as the mother's sworn belief alone was not a sufficient basis for imputation.

The Respondent was ordered to pay costs to the Applicant.

The defendant/father moved for costs after the plaintiff/mother discontinued her civil action for intentional infliction of emotional distress and battery.

The civil action was launched after the mother filed a motion to change in family court seeking to relocate with the child, which the father opposed.

The court found the civil action unnecessary and duplicative, as the claim for damages should have been made within the family law proceeding.

Despite the mother's claims of being threatened and impecunious, the court found no supporting evidence for these assertions.

The father's Bill of Costs was deemed reasonable.

The court ordered the mother to pay $4000 in costs to the father.

This family law trial addressed parenting time, decision-making responsibility, and child support for two children of the marriage and one child from a previous relationship.

The court found both parents contributed to high conflict and poor communication, negatively impacting the children.

The mother was granted sole decision-making, with the father having sole decision-making for Liam's haircuts.

Primary residence for the children remained with the mother, but the father's parenting time with Liam was increased, and a graduated schedule for Keira was ordered to facilitate relationship repair.

The court also found the mother stood in the place of a parent to the father's child from a previous relationship, Kacean, and calculated child support arrears, resulting in a net amount owed by the mother to the father.

The court declined to order a police enforcement clause but mandated co-parenting counseling.

The applicant mother and respondent father each brought motions following a case conference.

The respondent sought to set aside a procedural order granting the applicant leave to bring substantive motions, arguing inadequate notice.

The applicant sought interim child support, spousal support, and contribution to orthodontic expenses.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion, finding he had adequate notice of the case conference and the court had jurisdiction to make procedural orders.

The court granted the applicant's motion, ordering the respondent to pay interim Table child support of $1,769 per month, 70% of orthodontic expenses, and interim spousal support of $2,500 per month, which was adjusted downwards to account for the respondent's ongoing payment of the joint mortgage.

The applicant children's aid society sought an order for extended society care for two First Nations children with special needs.

The children were removed from their father's care following disclosures of inappropriate touching, though the court could not conclude on a balance of probabilities that the father was the perpetrator.

The court found the children in need of protection due to a failure to provide treatment, emotional harm, and risk of emotional harm stemming from the parents' residential instability, the mother's unaddressed alcohol addiction, and exposure to domestic violence.

The court ordered the children placed in extended society care, finding that neither parent nor the maternal grandmother could provide a safe and stable environment.

Specified access was granted to both parents and the children's First Nations band.

This costs endorsement followed a successful motion by the respondent to compel the applicant to comply with a financial disclosure order.

The respondent sought a significant monetary penalty for the applicant's non-compliance, while the applicant sought costs.

The court declined to impose a monetary penalty, citing unsettled jurisprudence on such penalties without a contempt finding and the lack of specific notice for such relief in the motion.

However, the court found the respondent, as the successful party, was entitled to costs.

Considering the applicant's unreasonable behaviour in failing to comply with disclosure, the court awarded the self-represented respondent $2,500 in costs, enforceable as a support order.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following the dismissal of the respondent mother's motion for independent legal representation for the children.

The applicant father, who successfully opposed the motion, sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis ($28,000).

The respondent mother proposed no costs or a significantly lower amount ($6,000).

The court applied established family law costs principles, affirming the presumption that a successful party is entitled to costs, and determined that partial indemnity was the appropriate scale.

The court ultimately awarded the father $15,000 in costs, finding his initial request too high and the mother's too low, aiming for a fair, just, reasonable, and proportionate result.

The applicant mother brought a Motion to Change a 2016 final order regarding parenting time, and the respondent father sought sole decision-making and enforcement of financial terms.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the parties' de facto shared parenting arrangement prior to the mother's 2019 mental health crisis.

The court ordered a week-on/week-off shared parenting schedule, finding it in the children's best interests despite high conflict and allegations of family violence.

Child support arrears were fixed at zero due to the shared parenting arrangement and similar incomes.

The mother was also ordered to fulfill her outstanding equalization obligations by transferring pension funds and paying cash, failing which the matrimonial home must be sold.

The parties, who share parenting time on a rotating weekly basis, disagreed on which school their four-year-old child should attend for junior kindergarten.

The applicant father proposed a public school near his home, while the respondent mother proposed a French first language Catholic school.

The court applied the best interests of the child test, considering logistics, the parents' ability to assist with homework, and the promotion of the child's religious and linguistic heritage.

The court ordered that the child attend the French Catholic school proposed by the mother, finding it more consonant with the child's best interests.

Following a motion regarding custody, access, and child support, the respondent father sought costs.

The applicant mother argued that success was divided and no costs should be payable.

The court found that the father was substantially successful on the access and child support issues, while the mother was only successful on the minor issue of shared transportation.

Applying the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court rejected the mother's argument of divided success and awarded costs to the father on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $1,405.76.

The applicant sought to vary his probation order to remove the non-contact condition with his girlfriend, J.R., and his children, citing rehabilitation and J.R.'s support.

The Crown opposed, highlighting the applicant's history of domestic violence, breaches of the order, and ambivalence towards alcohol counselling.

The court acknowledged the applicant's efforts but noted ongoing concerns and the lack of complete information due to concurrent family court proceedings where the children had been removed from J.R.'s custody and the applicant was denied supervised access.

The court emphasized the need for a holistic approach to domestic violence cases across criminal and family justice systems.

Following a successful motion to change a final order regarding child support, the moving party sought costs of $14,188.62 on a partial indemnity scale.

The responding party argued for a reduced quantum of $4,000, citing her inability to pay and alleging unreasonable behaviour by the moving party.

The court found that the moving party was substantially successful and had behaved reasonably throughout the litigation.

Conversely, the court found the responding party behaved unreasonably by failing to make concessions despite clear evidence of a material change in circumstances and by involving the children in the litigation.

The court held that ability to pay is not a complete defence to a costs award and ordered the responding party to pay the full requested amount of $14,188.62.

The court determined the costs of a family law application where success was divided but the respondent was overall more successful.

The applicant failed to provide written costs submissions and had failed to attend the last two days of trial.

The respondent had made an offer to settle that was more favourable to the applicant than the final order.

Consequently, the court awarded the respondent costs on a partial indemnity basis up to the date of the offer and on a full indemnity basis thereafter, fixing the total costs payable by the applicant at $54,471.

The respondent sought a modification of the parental schedule to achieve 50/50 custody and an adjustment to child support.

The applicant opposed the change to the parental schedule and also sought an adjustment to child support, the cancellation of drug screening tests, and an order allowing her to manage inheritance funds without the respondent's participation.

The court denied the respondent's request for a 50/50 parental schedule, citing allegations of domestic violence and the child's difficulty adjusting to schedule changes.

Child support was adjusted downwards based on the respondent's reduced income.

The frequency of drug tests was reduced from twice weekly to once monthly, acknowledging negative results but also a history of drug use.

The issue of managing inheritance funds was reserved for trial.

The applicant sought child support and ongoing spousal support following the breakdown of a short marriage in which the respondent had sponsored the applicant and her child to Canada.

The central issue was whether the respondent stood in the place of a parent to the applicant’s child, who was not his biological child.

Applying the principles in Chartier, the court found that the respondent had assumed a parental role through financial support, representation to others as the child’s father, and participation in the child’s life.

The child was therefore a “child of the marriage,” and the respondent was ordered to pay guideline child support, including retroactive support.

The court also ordered time‑limited spousal support and granted the divorce.

Following dismissal of a motion to vary a long-standing child support order after a half-day trial, the court considered costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The successful party sought approximately $14,684 in partial indemnity costs.

The court held that costs associated with earlier proceedings such as a settlement conference and Dispute Resolution Officer appearance could not be claimed because costs were not reserved to the trial judge.

The court also reduced travel time and mileage charges for out-of-town counsel, finding that absent evidence local counsel was unavailable such additional costs should not be borne by the opposing party.

Taking into account the respondent’s lack of preparation and the overall circumstances, the court awarded reduced costs.

Following a family law trial addressing custody, access, child support, spousal support, and equalization, both parties sought costs.

The court applied Rules 18 and 24 of the Family Law Rules and found that success at trial was divided.

Although the respondent obtained sole custody, the order was conditional and the court expressed concerns about the respondent’s behaviour and its effect on the children’s relationship with the applicant.

Neither party satisfied the requirements of Rule 18(14) for full recovery of costs based on offers to settle.

Considering the complexity of the issues, the parties’ conduct, the offers exchanged, and the best interests of the children, the court declined to award costs to either party.

The Children's Aid Society applied for a status review seeking Crown wardship for two children who had been in continuous care for over two years.

The mother, who had a lengthy history of substance abuse, sought the return of the children under a supervision order, demonstrating significant and sustained recovery efforts.

The court found that the mother had achieved a sustained recovery with a strong relapse prevention plan, and that the risk of relapse was sufficiently minimal.

The court dismissed the Society's application for Crown wardship and ordered the children returned to the mother's care subject to a 12-month supervision order with strict conditions, including ongoing substance abuse treatment and testing.

The respondent father, a resident of France, brought a motion to strike the applicant mother's claim for child support in Ontario, arguing that an existing French court order already addressed the issue.

The court applied the Muscutt factors and found a real and substantial connection to Ontario, as the children habitually reside there.

Distinguishing previous case law, the court held that because custody and access were also being legitimately litigated in Ontario, it was appropriate to assume jurisdiction over child support to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

The motion to strike was dismissed.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a final order to transfer the primary residence of the parties' 10-year-old child to him.

The motion was prompted by the child expressing a strong desire to live with the applicant due to ongoing conflict and turmoil in the respondent mother's home, which included involvement by the Children's Aid Society and police related to the respondent's abusive partner.

The court found a material change in circumstances and applied the best interests of the child factors under section 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

Relying on the child's views and preferences, the instability in the respondent's home, and the applicant's stable plan, the court granted the motion and ordered that the child's primary residence be changed to the applicant.