Scott J. DeGroot

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking primary residence, sole decision-making, and other relief in a family law matter involving two daughters.

The court declined to grant primary residence but made orders for parenting time and counselling.

In this costs endorsement, the court determined that the mother was entitled to costs despite not achieving complete success on the motion.

The mother had made two formal offers to settle and one informal offer that were similar to or better than the results achieved.

The father's conduct in denying the mother any parenting time until court-ordered, combined with his failure to make any settlement offers, warranted a costs award.

The court ordered the father to pay $20,000 in costs to the mother, inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

The Ontario Court of Justice considered a motion without notice brought by the respondent seeking urgent orders regarding the primary residence and parenting time of the parties' child following the applicant's unilateral relocation.

The court found that the respondent did not establish the necessary urgency or grounds to proceed without notice for changing the child's primary residence or relocation.

However, due to serious allegations concerning the applicant's partner's criminal charges, the court granted a limited without-prejudice order restricting the child's contact with the named individuals pending further investigation.

The court emphasized the need for involvement of the Children's Aid Society (CAS) and proper jurisdictional considerations for the ongoing matter.

This is a costs decision following a three-day family law trial concerning parenting and decision-making for a child.

The respondent sought partial indemnity costs, arguing greater success and unreasonable conduct by the applicant.

The applicant sought no costs, citing divided success and modest financial resources.

The court found that while the respondent was somewhat more successful overall, neither party fully met their settlement offers, and both exhibited reasonable and unreasonable conduct at various stages of the litigation.

The court ultimately ordered each party to bear their own costs, concluding that the trial was unnecessary and both parties should have done more to avoid it.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a shared parenting order, seeking sole decision-making and primary residence, while the applicant mother sought to maintain the shared arrangement or a week-about schedule.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the child's aging, the unworkable original schedule, and high parental conflict.

Applying the best interests of the child test, and giving significant weight to the child's expressed views from Voice of the Child Reports, the court ordered joint decision-making and primary residence with the father during the school week, with extended alternate weekend and Wednesday parenting time for the mother, and a week-about schedule during summer holidays.

The court also addressed child support arrears.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a final order that had terminated his access to his two children due to a history of emotional abuse, harassment, and anger issues directed at the applicant mother and witnessed by the children.

The court applied the two-stage test from Gordon v. Goertz, finding that the father failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances.

Despite engaging in minimal psychiatric consultation and an anger management course, the father lacked insight into his past abusive behavior, continued to blame others, and did not adequately address his mental health issues.

The court dismissed the motion to reinstate access but ordered the parties to use an online communication platform for child-focused information exchange and restricted the father from bringing further variation applications for 15 months without leave.