Sheilagh Marie O'Connell

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings for failure to comply with multiple court orders for financial disclosure and to obtain costs on a full recovery basis.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing he had provided adequate disclosure and was reluctant to provide further disclosure due to alleged identity theft and misuse of confidential information by the applicant.

The court declined to strike the pleadings, finding that while the disclosure was inadequate, the respondent had provided some disclosure, explained his reasons for non-compliance, and the child support order was in good standing.

The court gave the respondent one further opportunity to produce required disclosure with strict limits on its use and distribution.

The respondent father brought a second motion for contempt against the applicant mother, alleging that she willfully breached a supervised access order by failing to arrange for supervised access to continue following her relocation from Kingston to Kitchener.

The father sought an adjournment pending completion of phallometric testing.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding that the mother had not willfully or intentionally breached the order and that the delay in commencing supervised access was the responsibility of the supervised access centre, which declined to provide services due to concerns of a sexual nature.

The court awarded costs to the mother and declined to impose a requirement that the father pay outstanding costs orders before bringing further motions.

A mother brought a motion for summary judgment seeking child support, section 7 expenses, and related orders against the father of her child.

The father opposed the motion, arguing that he should not be legally obligated to pay child support because the mother engaged in a "premeditated theft of the father's DNA" during a "hostile sexual act of DNA theft." The father also sought a restraining order against the mother for alleged stalking.

The court dismissed the father's defence to child support as having no legal basis, imputed income to the father based on his intentional underemployment, and dismissed the restraining order application.

The court granted the mother's motion on all substantive issues.

The respondent brought a motion to change a final order for custody and child support.

The applicant brought a contempt motion alleging the respondent breached a consent order requiring settlement funds to be held in trust.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding that the respondent could not have known of the order's existence as it was never properly prepared, issued, entered, or served upon him or his civil counsel.

The court noted that while the respondent's conduct was reprehensible—withdrawing approximately $90,000 for personal use while owing child support arrears—the procedural requirements for a contempt finding could not be satisfied.

The motion to change was ordered to proceed on an expedited basis.

A motion to change a 2010 final custody and access order in a high-conflict family law matter involving a child born in 2005.

The mother sought to restrict the father's access to daytime visits only and sought a restraining order and police enforcement clause, citing the father's volatile temper, verbal abuse, and pattern of cancellations.

The father sought sole or joint custody and expanded overnight access.

The court found material changes in circumstances including the mother's mental health and addiction treatment in 2013, the father's pattern of access cancellations, and escalating conflict between the parties.

The court maintained sole custody with the mother while modifying access provisions to include alternate weekend overnight access and one midweek overnight per week.

The court declined to impose a police enforcement clause but granted a restraining order.

Child support was imputed at $30,000 annually.

The applicant mother brought a motion to strike the respondent father's pleadings for non-compliance with court orders, seeking termination or discretionary access to the child, child support, and vacation of the upcoming court date.

The respondent father failed to attend the hearing despite being served with notice.

The court found that the father had not exercised access since February 2016, failed to provide financial disclosure, and had not attended court since February 2016.

The court struck the father's pleadings, allowing the mother to proceed unopposed, confirmed the mother's custody, made access discretionary to the mother subject to the child's wishes, and declined to order child support given the father's receipt of Ontario Works and apparent mental health issues.

The payor brought a motion to vary the terms of a refraining order previously granted by Justice Scully, seeking to reduce ongoing child support payments from $772.43 per month to $349 per month, commencing September 1, 2016.

The motion was heard by the case management judge presiding over the related motion to change proceedings.

The court declined to grant the variation, finding that the payor had not demonstrated a prima facie case for change and that granting the relief would effectively predetermine triable issues pending the scheduled trial in the motion to change, which was only twelve weeks away.

The court also expressed concern about the jurisdictional basis for varying a refraining order granted by a different judge in enforcement proceedings.

The respondent father sought to vary a 2006 child support order that imputed income to him at $88,000 per annum.

The father claimed changed circumstances: (1) he became a salaried employee at Mercedes-Benz earning $32,583.80 in 2012; (2) he suffered a workplace accident in March 2013 resulting in post-concussion syndrome and CPP disability benefits; and (3) the eldest child graduated from university and was no longer eligible for support.

The applicant mother opposed the motion, arguing the issues were res judicata and that the father was hiding income and leading a lavish lifestyle.

The court found a change in circumstances and varied the child support retroactively to July 1, 2013, imputing income at $30,000 per annum.

The court rejected the mother's retroactive claim for the eldest child's post-secondary expenses as barred by the DBS rule.

The father's obligation to contribute to the younger child's post-secondary expenses was left to be determined by the parties.

In a status review application under the Child and Family Services Act, the court determined that two children continue to be in need of protection and made an order for crown wardship with permanent placement in a kinship foster home with the maternal aunt and uncle.

The mother sought return of the children to her care subject to society supervision, while the father sought return to his sole custody without supervision.

The court found that neither parent could adequately care for the children due to the mother's multiple health conditions and parenting deficits, and the father's refusal to acknowledge substance abuse issues, violence, and his complete lack of contact with the children.

The court approved the society's plan for crown wardship with the children remaining in the stable kinship placement where they were thriving, while maintaining supervised access with the mother and discretionary supervised access with the father.

The respondent mother sought $15,000 in costs for five case conferences in a family law matter involving custody, access, and child support.

The applicant father opposed the costs award, claiming financial hardship after already spending $62,000 in legal fees.

The court found that while the first two case conferences were wasted appearances due to the father's failure to produce ordered financial disclosure, the remaining three conferences involved ongoing custody and access negotiations with no clear winner or loser.

The court awarded partial costs of $5,000 to the mother, payable within 30 days or at $300 per month commencing May 1, 2016, noting the absence of a formal offer to settle and the father's financial constraints.

In this high-conflict family law trial, the court determined custody and access arrangements for three children following the separation of unmarried parents.

The mother sought sole custody with the children residing in Scarborough; the father sought sole custody with the children residing in Oakville.

The court found both parents had significant parenting deficits and were engaged in a toxic relationship.

The mother was actively undermining the children's relationship with their father through alienating conduct, including telling the oldest child the father was not her biological father and changing the middle child's name.

The father had chronic housing and employment instability, having been evicted multiple times.

The court ordered joint custody with a shared residential schedule, with the children residing primarily with the mother during school weeks in Scarborough to ensure housing stability, while maintaining regular contact with the father.

The court emphasized that the mother's alienating conduct must cease or she risked losing custody.

The applicant father brought motions for contempt and access against the respondent mother who had willfully breached access orders made on consent by Justice Katarynych on July 16, 2015 and September 2, 2015.

The mother failed to attend nine court proceedings, including the contempt hearing and sentencing hearing.

The court found the mother in contempt of the July 16, 2015 order and imposed a $500 fine.

The court modified the access arrangement to allow the father direct pickup and return of the child from the mother's residence on a weekly basis, commencing February 27, 2016.

The mother was given an opportunity to purge her contempt by complying with the new access order.

The respondent mother sought full recovery of costs totalling $130,120.03 for five court appearances in a family law matter involving parenting arrangements and access to a child.

The applicant father opposed the costs claim, arguing the amounts were excessive and disproportionate to the relatively routine issues involved.

The court awarded partial costs only for two of the five appearances: $8,000 for the ex parte motion on January 12, 2015, and $8,000 for the motion on June 24, 2015, for a total award of $16,000.

The court disallowed costs for the case conferences and the settlement conference, finding that costs had not been reserved at those proceedings and that no clear winner or loser could be determined where parties settled their disputes.

A mother sought costs against a Children's Aid Society following the withdrawal of a child protection application.

The Society had commenced proceedings seeking supervision of the child, who had Crohn's disease, after the mother sought alternative naturopathic treatment and refused to cooperate with the Society's investigation.

The court dismissed the costs motion, finding that while the mother was a strong advocate for her child, the Society acted reasonably in investigating concerns raised by medical professionals and in seeking a minimally intrusive court order to compel cooperation.

The Society reassessed its position once information was provided and withdrew the application at the third court appearance.

A costs decision following dismissal of a contempt motion brought by the applicant father against the respondent mother.

The father sought full indemnity costs of $32,309.62, alleging the mother acted in bad faith by making repeated unfounded reports to child protection and police agencies.

The mother sought costs on a full indemnity basis from the date of her offer to settle.

The court found the mother acted unreasonably but not in bad faith, and declined to award costs to either party, balancing the mother's unreasonable conduct against the father's failure to serve an offer to settle or counter-offer.

A trial concerning child support obligations for a child with autism spectrum disorder and chromosome 1 deletion.

The father, self-employed and previously bankrupt, sought to establish child support based on an imputed income of $30,000 per annum.

The mother sought support based on an imputed income of $40,850 per annum, retroactive child support from the child's birth, and the father's proportionate contribution to special and extraordinary expenses.

The court imputed income at $37,000 per annum, ordered ongoing child support of $325 per month, a contribution to section 7 expenses of $312 per month commencing March 1, 2016, and fixed retroactive child support arrears at $10,000 payable at $100 per month.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for an order that the children reside with her pending the release of the trial judgment in a custody and access matter.

The respondent father brought a motion to re-open the trial to introduce fresh evidence regarding his changed circumstances following his separation from his common law spouse and his loss of rental accommodation.

The court allowed the father's motion to re-open the trial to hear evidence of his new plan of care for the children, but limited the scope of the evidence to matters arising after the close of trial.

The court reserved its ruling on the mother's motion pending the hearing of the fresh evidence.

A family law trial concerning access and child support for a child born in 2004.

The applicant father sought expanded access on a week-about basis or 50% shared parenting, and sought to change or set aside a temporary child support order with arrears of approximately $70,000.

The respondent mother sought to maintain the existing access arrangement (alternate Sundays during the day only at a supervised access centre) and sought enforcement of the child support order with all arrears due forthwith.

The trial was complicated by the father's multiple criminal convictions for fraud, his repeated incarcerations, and his lack of remorse.

The court found the father was not a credible witness and preferred the mother's evidence.

The court expanded access to include Saturday overnight visits on alternating weekends at the paternal grandparents' home, imputed income to the father at $75,000 based on his access to a family trust, set ongoing child support at $782 per month, and fixed arrears at $53,740.

The respondent father brought a motion to change child and spousal support provisions in a separation agreement dated December 22, 1999.

The father sought to reduce his child support obligations based on declining commission income and to fix arrears at zero.

The applicant mother opposed the motion and sought to maintain the father's imputed income at $80,000 per annum, arguing the father was intentionally underemployed.

The court found that while the father's gross commission income had declined, he had been significantly underpaying child support by structuring his financial affairs to declare substantially less income than available.

The court imputed income at $80,000 per annum, ordered ongoing child support of $1,823 per month, and fixed arrears at $10,000.

A costs decision arising from a motion regarding jurisdiction and access enforcement in a family law matter involving child custody and relocation.

The respondent father sought to enforce the Ontario Court's jurisdiction over access issues pending his relocation to Nova Scotia, as established in a prior consent order.

The applicant mother challenged this jurisdiction and commenced a simultaneous application in Nova Scotia.

The court awarded costs to the respondent father on the jurisdiction issue, finding the applicant's conduct unreasonable, while declining to award costs on the access issues where success was divided and ultimately resolved by consent.