Shelston

The applicant child protection agency brought a Wagg motion seeking production of the complete Crown Brief regarding pending criminal charges against the respondent father for sexual offences against his child.

The Attorney General opposed production, arguing it could prejudice the ongoing criminal prosecution and taint witnesses.

The court granted the motion, finding that the agency met the test under Rule 19(11) of the Family Law Rules and that the rights and interests of the parties in the child protection proceeding outweighed any possible prejudice to the Attorney General in the criminal proceedings.

The father brought a motion to compel the mother to return to Ottawa with their two children or, alternatively, for primary residence.

The mother had relocated to Smith Falls without notice or consent, citing domestic violence and safety concerns.

The mother brought a cross-motion to remain in Smith Falls and reduce the father's parenting time.

The court found the mother was justified in moving without notice due to credible threats to her safety, exempting her from the notice requirements under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court ordered that the children's primary residence remain with the mother in Smith Falls, but dismissed the mother's request to reduce the father's weekend parenting time, maintaining the status quo.

Following a trial with divided success, both parties sought costs.

The applicant was successful in setting aside the marriage contract and obtaining equalization and spousal support, while the respondent was successful in obtaining a finding of parental alienation and limiting spousal support.

The court found the applicant's alienating conduct amounted to bad faith under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules.

Balancing the divided success, the applicant's bad faith, and the respondent's excessive costs claims, the court ordered both parties to bear their own costs.

The maternal grandmother sought an order extending the statutory timeline to file an openness application regarding her two grandchildren, who had been placed for adoption.

She argued the adoptive parents breached a voluntary openness agreement and asked the court to use its parens patriae jurisdiction to extend the timeline and enforce the agreement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that an openness agreement is not enforceable as a court order and that the specific facts did not justify exercising parens patriae jurisdiction, as doing so would further delay permanency for the children.

The parties separated and the mother unilaterally relocated to France with their 16-month-old child without the father's consent.

The father brought an urgent motion for the child's return to Ottawa, while the mother sought permission to relocate, alleging family violence.

The court found insufficient evidence of family violence to justify the unilateral move and ordered the mother to return the child to Ottawa, establishing a temporary parenting schedule.

The applicant sought a divorce, child support, and equalization of net family property.

The court found the respondent's evidence regarding alleged debts to third parties and the value of pottery retained by the applicant to be not credible, excluding them from the equalization calculation.

The respondent was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $74,804.80, child support arrears of $15,288, and adjustments for a joint line of credit.

A divorce order was granted.

The parties separated after a 7.5-year cohabitation during which the applicant supported the respondent's military career, resulting in economic disadvantage.

The court granted a divorce and ordered the respondent to pay an equalization payment of $40,254.55.

The court found the applicant entitled to compensatory and non-compensatory spousal support, including the respondent's non-taxable military allowances in his income.

Spousal support was ordered at $1,393 per month, terminating in May 2022 after a total duration of 69 months.

The applicant's requests to remain on the respondent's health and life insurance plans long-term were dismissed.

The parties separated in 2014 after a five-year relationship and having three children, one of whom has special needs.

The applicant sought joint decision-making, an alternating-week parenting schedule, and to purchase the respondent's interest in the matrimonial home.

The respondent sought sole decision-making, primary residence, and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court granted sole decision-making and primary residence to the respondent, finding the parties could not communicate effectively and the respondent had been the primary caregiver.

The court imputed the applicant's income at $175,000 due to his lifestyle and retained corporate earnings, ordered the matrimonial home to be sold, and calculated the equalization payment owed by the applicant at $134,868.13.

The applicant mother brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support, and an advance on an equalization payment from the proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court imputed an income of $30,000 to the mother and ordered the father to pay net child support of $1,041 per month and spousal support of $1,172 per month.

The court declined to order an advance on the equalization payment beyond the amounts consented to by the father, as the father's pension had not yet been valued and funds needed to remain in trust to secure potential cost awards at trial.

The applicant doctor applied under section 164 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 to admit a 17-year-old child to a secure treatment program for 180 days.

The child, who suffered from severe depressive disorder and had a history of numerous suicide attempts and self-harm, opposed the application.

The court found that all six criteria under section 164 were met, including that the child suffered from a mental disorder, had recently attempted to cause serious bodily harm to herself, and that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate.

The application was granted, and the child was committed to the secure treatment program for 180 days.

Following a family law trial regarding spousal support and property division, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The applicant sought costs on a partial or full indemnity basis, arguing he was the most successful party and that the respondent acted unreasonably.

The respondent argued for full recovery costs based on divided success and an offer to settle.

The court found the applicant was the more successful party, having succeeded on periodic spousal support, security for support, and property division.

After considering the parties' conduct, offers to settle, and the reasonableness of the fees claimed, the court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant fixed costs of $150,000.

The mother brought an urgent motion seeking an order that the parties' child attend school online due to COVID-19 concerns and a finding of contempt against the father for unilaterally registering the child for in-person attendance.

The father brought a cross-motion for the child to attend in-person and take the school bus.

Applying the Zinati factors, the court found it was in the child's best interests to attend school in-person and take the bus, as there was no evidence of unacceptable risk to the child or family members.

However, the court found the father breached the joint custody order by acting unilaterally and ordered him to pay the mother's costs for the contempt motion.

The parties, who share joint custody of their six-year-old child, disagreed on where the child should attend grade one.

The mother proposed a French language school midway between their residences, while the father proposed a French immersion school near his home in Kanata.

The court considered the child's best interests, including the father's disability, transportation logistics, and the parties' respective work schedules.

The court ordered the child to attend the father's proposed school, finding it better accommodated the father's needs and reduced overall travel time, while still meeting the child's linguistic needs.

The Children's Aid Society sought an order placing four children in its temporary care and custody following an incident where the mother allowed unapproved individuals into the home, breaching a previous supervision order.

The parents sought the return of the children under a new supervision order.

The court found that while the mother breached the order by allowing unapproved visitors, the parents had otherwise acted responsibly and were addressing the children's needs.

The court ordered that all four children be returned to the temporary care and custody of the parents, subject to strict conditions under a supervision order.

The respondent wife brought a motion seeking various interim relief, including financial disclosure, release of trust funds, partition and sale of the matrimonial home, and an increase in spousal support.

The court ordered the applicant husband to provide the requested financial disclosure and released $68,000 from trust to pay the wife's tax arrears.

The court dismissed the wife's requests to set aside the husband's exclusive possession and the restraining order against her.

However, the court ordered the pre-trial partition and sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home, finding the husband had not established a competing interest under the Family Law Act that would be defeated by the sale.

Interim spousal support was also increased due to a material change in the husband's income.

The children's aid society brought a motion for an interim supervision order regarding a child diagnosed with a seizure disorder and developmental delays.

The parents refused to administer recommended anti-convulsant medication, believing instead that the child suffered from an allergy, and treated the seizures with an Epi-pen.

The court found that the parents' refusal to accept the medical diagnosis and administer the recommended treatment created a significant risk of harm to the child.

The court granted the society's motion, placing the child under the interim care of the parents subject to society supervision and conditions requiring them to follow the hospital's medical recommendations.

The applicant sought a divorce, child and spousal support, equalization of net family property, and costs in an uncontested trial after the respondent's answer was struck.

The court imputed an income of $78,600 to the respondent due to his failure to provide financial disclosure.

The court calculated retroactive child support, resulting in the applicant owing the respondent for overpayments, which were offset against the respondent's retroactive spousal support arrears.

The court ordered the respondent to pay ongoing indexed spousal support of $1,070 per month, an equalization payment of $6,196, and $4,000 in costs.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's answer and claim for failing to pay a prior costs award of $34,968.42, and sought security for costs.

The respondent brought a cross-motion to dismiss.

The court noted that striking pleadings in family law cases involving children should only be done in exceptional circumstances.

The court adjourned the motion to strike to allow the respondent time to pay the costs award, warning that failure to comply would result in pleadings being struck.

The request for security for costs was dismissed, but improper references to settlement offers in the respondent's affidavit were struck.

The parties separated after a 16-year marriage with four children.

The father, a denturist with his own business, sought sole custody and child support, while the mother sought spousal support, child support, and equalization of net family property.

The court determined the parties' respective incomes, declining to impute income to the mother for pursuing a Master's degree and finding the father's income to be $90,000 based on a mortgage application.

The court ordered the father to pay an equalization payment of $110,666.79, plus $56,498.62 owing under a Maher contract, which was found to be a valid and enforceable civil contract.

The father was also ordered to pay retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support.

Following a 12-day family law trial regarding custody, access, and support, the parties could not agree on costs.

The mother sought costs of over $130,000, arguing she was the successful party and had made reasonable offers to settle.

The self-represented father argued for each party to bear their own costs due to divided success.

The court found the mother was the more successful party and that her offers to settle were reasonable and better than the trial outcome on several key issues.

The court also noted the father's lack of preparation unnecessarily extended the trial.

The court fixed costs at $60,000 payable by the father to the mother.