Sherr J.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion to change a parenting order.

The respondent (father) successfully obtained overnight parenting time with the parties' six-year-old child, whereas the applicant (mother) had sought supervised parenting time only.

The court awarded costs to the successful respondent, fixing the amount at $1,307.27 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable in monthly installments of $100 commencing January 1, 2021.

An application under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act for child support for three children.

The claimant, residing in Minnesota, sought support from the respondent, residing in Ontario.

The respondent initially failed to respond but later attended hearings and provided oral evidence.

The court imputed the respondent's annual income at $36,000 based on his lifestyle and actual earnings, despite his tax return showing only $8,353.

The court ordered child support of $737 monthly per the guidelines table, retroactive to February 1, 2020, and credited the respondent for direct payments made to the claimant.

Following a previous order striking the respondent father's Answer/Claim on September 4, 2020, the court provided him with an opportunity to reinstate his pleading upon meeting specified conditions: payment of $3,000 and provision of detailed financial disclosure within 45 days.

The father failed to comply with any of these conditions.

The applicant mother sought directions on how to proceed.

The court determined that the father would not be permitted to participate further in the case, finding that his continued defiance of court orders and failure to demonstrate good faith made it contrary to the administration of justice to allow his participation, particularly given that the children's primary residence with the mother was already established and not a contentious issue.

This is a costs endorsement following the court's September 4, 2020 decision granting the applicant's motion to strike the respondent's Answer/Claim.

The applicant sought costs of $2,581.20.

The respondent did not make written costs submissions.

The court fixed costs at $2,400, payable immediately, finding that the applicant's offer to settle was as favourable as the motion result and that the respondent had acted unreasonably by breaching multiple court orders and failing to remedy those breaches despite a lengthy adjournment.

This is a costs endorsement following a two-day trial concerning parenting and child support arrangements for a four-year-old child.

The respondent (mother) sought costs of $14,226.35, while the applicant (father) sought no costs award.

The court found that the mother was the successful party on the dominant issues (primary residence and parenting time) and was entitled to costs.

The mother had made two offers to settle, the second of which was severable and more favourable to the father on custody and support issues.

The court awarded costs of $10,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable at $275 per month commencing October 1, 2020.

Trial decision determining custody, parenting time, and child support for a four-year-old child whose parents reside in different municipalities.

The mother was awarded custody and primary residence.

The father was granted generous parenting time including three out of four weekends monthly and mid-week visits.

Child support was ordered based on imputed income, with a phased approach accounting for pandemic impacts.

The court found the mother to be the more credible witness and better positioned to make major decisions for the child, while acknowledging both parents' commitment and love for the child.

This is a continuation of a temporary care and custody motion under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 concerning a 7-year-old child.

The court initially determined that the child should not be placed in the temporary care and custody of the mother, and adjourned the motion to allow the society to investigate concerns about the father's suitability as a caregiver.

Upon the matter's return, the society had completed its investigation and addressed the court's concerns.

The court found that the father's circumstances had sufficiently improved and that it was in the child's best interests to place the child in the temporary care and custody of the father, subject to society supervision.

This is a costs decision following a motion regarding temporary parenting arrangements for three children.

The court ordered on June 5, 2020 that the applicant (mother) have temporary custody of the children with defined parenting time for the respondent (father).

The mother sought costs of $3,390 while the father requested costs be limited to $1,200.

The court awarded costs of $2,500 to the mother, payable at $250 per month starting July 1, 2020, taking into account the father's limited financial circumstances and his unreasonable conduct during the proceedings.

Paternal grandparents sought leave to bring an urgent motion for joint custody and primary care of two children (ages 5 and 3).

The children's father had wrongfully removed them to Turkey in breach of a 2017 custody order.

The mother obtained a Hague Convention order for their return in May 2019 and subsequently obtained temporary custody.

The court dismissed the grandparents' request for an urgent motion, finding no evidence of abduction or threat of harm by the mother, no immediate concern that could not await resolution, and noting the grandparents' delay in seeking court intervention.

Instead, the court ordered a priority case conference to be held by teleconference.

The applicant mother sought to modify a child support order by obtaining contributions from the father towards special or extraordinary expenses (daycare costs) and requesting that the father designate the child as a beneficiary on his life insurance policy.

The respondent father sought a reduction in his child support obligations.

The court found that there had been a material change in circumstances warranting modification.

The court granted the mother's motion in part, ordering the father to contribute $600 retroactively for special expenses and $80 monthly prospectively, while maintaining his existing $450 monthly base support payment.

The court also ordered the father to designate the child as a beneficiary on any available life insurance coverage as security for his support obligations.

The respondent father sought to reduce his child support obligation from $696 per month to $350 per month, claiming loss of full-time employment.

The applicant mother opposed the motion, alleging deliberate underemployment and undisclosed income sources.

The court found that the father had failed to disclose income increases prior to job loss, maintained an inconsistent lifestyle despite financial hardship claims, and had unexplained deposits into his bank accounts.

The court refused to reduce support retroactively but reduced support prospectively from September 1, 2019, while imputing additional income based on the father's capacity to work part-time in alternative employment.

A mother sought retroactive child support from the father of their 11-year-old daughter, claiming support arrears from January 1, 2017 to March 2019.

The parties had previously agreed to a mediation summary report in 2012 providing for $300 monthly child support and $100 monthly RESP contributions.

The father's income had substantially increased since 2012 but he failed to disclose this increase or adjust support accordingly.

The court found the father engaged in blameworthy conduct by not increasing support despite a material change in circumstances.

The court ordered retroactive support retroactive to January 1, 2017, with credits for payments made and RESP contributions.

The father was ordered to pay arrears of $15,683 over four years at $326 monthly, plus ongoing support of $924 monthly based on his 2019 income of $101,816.

The respondent (mother) sought costs of $18,109.39 arising from her motion to change a final parenting order.

The applicant (father) requested nominal costs or payment at $50 per month.

The court found the mother was the successful party, having obtained an order for supervised access after the father failed to file a response to the motion to change, failed to attend at Assignment Court and a settlement conference, and failed to pay prior costs orders.

The court awarded costs of $6,500 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, taking into account the father's limited financial means and his unreasonable conduct throughout the litigation.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a restraining order made on June 6, 2017, which prohibited him from having any contact with the applicant mother and their six-year-old child.

The father sought to set aside the restraining order, or alternatively, to terminate it or change it to permit supervised access to the child.

The applicant mother opposed the motion and sought its dismissal.

The court dismissed the father's motion to set aside the restraining order, finding he did not move promptly and lacked a satisfactory excuse for his non-attendance at the original hearing.

The court also found no material change in circumstances warranting termination of the restraining order.

Finally, the court determined that access was not in the child's best interests at that time, given the father's history of severe domestic violence toward the mother, lack of meaningful change, dishonesty, and non-compliance with court orders.

The court dismissed the access claim but left open the possibility of future applications if the father demonstrated sustained constructive change.

A costs decision concerning counsel's conduct in a family law matter involving custody and child support claims.

The respondent's counsel repeatedly failed to attend court appearances despite being counsel of record, ignored court directions to explain her conduct, and failed to properly withdraw from the file.

The court found this conduct caused unnecessary costs to both the applicant and the respondent, and ordered the counsel to pay personal costs to both parties and to refrain from charging fees or disbursements for work on the case.

The respondent (father) brought a motion to find the applicant (mother) in contempt of the access provisions of a January 4, 2019 order.

The court dismissed the contempt motion.

The applicant sought costs of $4,746.

The respondent argued the costs were excessive.

The court awarded costs of $2,000 to the applicant, significantly discounting the claimed amount due to the applicant's inappropriate and abusive email communications to the respondent, which escalated animosity between the parties and contributed to the motion being brought, despite the respondent's motion being ill-conceived and lacking merit.

This is a status review application under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act where the Children's Aid Society sought to place a 10-year-old child in the care of the father for ten months subject to society supervision, with access to the mother in the society's discretion.

The mother opposed the application and sought custody.

The mother was self-represented and had previously had three legal aid-funded lawyers whose relationships with her had broken down.

The court considered whether to order state-funded counsel for the mother or appoint amicus curiae.

The court appointed amicus curiae to assist in presenting the mother's case fairly to the court, finding this was the appropriate remedy to protect the mother's Charter section 7 rights while ensuring timely resolution of the child's status.

The parties sought to change child support terms in their separation agreement dated October 30, 2007.

The father sought retroactive support adjustments and ongoing child support from the mother for their son.

The mother sought retroactive support from the father and opposed any obligation to pay child support.

The court conducted a judicial interview with the children to determine living arrangements and found that the son had primarily lived with the father since September 1, 2014, and the daughter had resided in a treatment facility from September 24, 2013 to September 1, 2015.

The court made retroactive adjustments to support effective January 1, 2011, imputed income to the mother, and ordered the mother to pay ongoing child support to the father for the son.