Somji

The respondent mother, who was diagnosed with terminal breast cancer, brought an urgent motion for an order allowing her to visit her 12-year-old son before she died.

The applicant father opposed the motion, citing the child's stated preference not to see his mother due to historical conflict and alleged trauma.

The court applied the best interests of the child framework under section 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

Despite the child's clear preference not to visit, the court found that a single, one-hour compassionate visit was in his long-term emotional and psychological best interests to provide closure and prevent future regret.

The motion was granted.

The defendant was previously found in civil contempt for flagrantly breaching a court order that required her to remove defamatory social media posts about the plaintiff and publish a retraction.

The court considered the wilful nature of the breaches, the significant mental and financial impact on the plaintiff, and the defendant's eventual purging of the contempt.

Applying criminal sentencing principles to civil contempt, the court sentenced the defendant to a 75-day conditional sentence (house arrest), followed by nine months of probation with 120 hours of community service, and awarded substantial indemnity costs to the plaintiff.

The applicant, charged with assault against his former partner, brought a Rowbotham application seeking a conditional stay of proceedings until the state funded his defence.

While the court found that the applicant had exhausted the Legal Aid process and lacked the financial means to retain counsel, it concluded that his right to a fair trial would not be materially compromised if he proceeded self-represented.

The court noted the case was not complex, involved limited disclosure, and the applicant demonstrated the cognitive ability to represent himself with the assistance of the trial judge.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant father sought costs of $11,550 following a motion brought by the respondent mother regarding parenting, child support, and disclosure.

The father argued he was the successful party on the primary issue of parenting time.

The court found divided success, as the mother succeeded on issues of decision-making, child support, and disclosure.

Due to the father's unreasonable conduct in failing to provide disclosure and the divided success, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The applicant, an inmate serving a life sentence, applied for habeas corpus challenging his involuntary transfer from a minimum-security to a medium-security institution.

The applicant argued the transfer decision was based on erroneous information and that his misconduct did not warrant a medium-security classification.

The court applied a reasonableness standard of review and found that the Correctional Service of Canada's decision was justified, transparent, and intelligible.

The record demonstrated the applicant's repeated institutional misconduct, including employment suspensions and unauthorized attendance in restricted areas, which supported the finding that he required a moderate degree of supervision.

The application was dismissed, and nominal costs of $500 were awarded to the respondent.

The mother brought an application for parenting orders, increased child support, and section 7 expenses following the father's failure to provide financial disclosure or engage in the proceedings.

The matter proceeded as an uncontested trial.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence.

Due to the father's failure to disclose his income, the court imputed his income based on the Bank of Canada's inflation calculator applied to his 2019 income.

The court ordered retroactive and ongoing child support based on the imputed income, apportioned section 7 expenses proportionally, and awarded costs to the mother.

The plaintiff brought a motion for civil contempt against the defendant for failing to comply with a previous court order that required the defendant to remove defamatory social media posts, refrain from further defamation, and publish a retraction.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the order was clear and unequivocal, the defendant had actual knowledge of it, and the defendant intentionally breached all three directives.

The court found the defendant in contempt and scheduled a second-stage hearing for sentencing, giving the defendant an opportunity to purge her contempt in the interim.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80.

He argued the trial judge erred in dismissing his Charter claims under ss. 8, 9, and 10(b), specifically challenging the reliability of the arresting officer's evidence, the validity of a delayed breath demand, and whether his right to counsel was provided without delay.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law or palpable and overriding errors of fact in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence and application of the law.

The mother brought an application for a parenting order, and the father was noted in default.

The matter proceeded as an uncontested trial.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of the 11-year-old child, with the father having alternate weekend parenting time during the school year and shared parenting in the summer.

The court also granted a divorce and awarded the mother $2,000 in costs, while adjourning the newly raised issue of child support to a later date.

The mother sought partial indemnity costs following a successful motion for retroactive and ongoing child support and financial disclosure.

The father argued for divided success because the issue of spousal support was adjourned to trial.

The court found the mother was substantially successful and presumptively entitled to costs.

The court awarded the mother costs fixed at $4,124.10 on a partial indemnity basis, noting the father's unreasonable settlement offers and the reasonableness of the mother's legal fees.

The applicant father brought a motion for child support arrears, a reduction in ongoing child support, and an order allowing him to obtain a passport for the youngest child without the respondent mother's consent.

The mother did not attend the hearing or provide updated financial disclosure.

The court found a material change in circumstances as the eldest child was no longer a child of the marriage and two other children had moved primarily to the father's residence.

The court ordered the mother to pay $23,625 in child support arrears, reduced the father's ongoing child support obligation, and granted the father the right to obtain a passport and travel internationally with the children without the mother's consent.

Costs of $1,000 were awarded to the father.

The applicant mother brought a motion to amend a 2018 child support order, seeking an adjustment of child support based on the respondent father's actual and imputed income, as well as a repayment schedule for arrears.

The father failed to provide updated financial disclosure for 2021.

The court imputed the father's income for 2021 and 2022 based on his 2020 income, ordered him to pay ongoing child support and arrears at a rate of $100 per month, and awarded costs of $4,500 to the mother.

The moving party father brought a motion for contempt against the responding party mother, alleging she intentionally obstructed his parenting time with their two teenage children on four occasions.

The mother argued she was minimally involved in the exchanges and the children themselves refused to attend.

The court dismissed the motion, finding insufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the mother engaged in deliberate conduct to breach the parenting order, noting that passivity does not equate to intentional obstruction.

The father brought a motion to change seeking retroactive child support based on the mother's increased income.

The mother opposed and sought to impute a higher income to the father, arguing he used his business to pay personal expenses and deliberately underpaid himself.

The court found the father had unreported income and personal expenses paid through his business.

The court imputed the father's income at $125,000 per year for 2019-2021, resulting in the father owing the mother retroactive child support arrears.

The court also ordered the parties to share section 7 childcare expenses equally.

The respondent mother brought a motion for an interim order granting her sole decision-making responsibility and sole discretion over the applicant father's parenting time, citing his ongoing alcohol addiction.

The father opposed the motion, seeking to reinstate supervised parenting time after the mother withheld access for ten months.

The court dismissed the mother's request for sole discretion, finding no material change in circumstances, and ordered supervised in-person and virtual parenting time for the father, along with reunification therapy.

The court maintained joint decision-making, granted a time-limited police enforcement clause, and ordered the father to pay child support arrears based on his actual income.

The mother brought a motion for an interim order granting her decision-making responsibility for the parties' seven-year-old child's health, specifically to obtain the MMR and COVID-19 vaccines.

The father opposed the vaccinations, citing his own autoimmune disorder and general skepticism of vaccines.

The court took judicial notice of government health advisories regarding the safety and efficacy of the vaccines.

Applying the best interests of the child test under the Divorce Act, the court granted the mother interim decision-making responsibility for health and vaccinations, subject to consultation with the child's physician regarding the father's medical history.

The applicant mother brought a motion for interim child and spousal support retroactive to September 2021, as well as financial disclosure.

The respondent father argued that the mother was intentionally underemployed, that one of the children was in a shared parenting arrangement, and that he had been paying support and other expenses.

The court found that the two youngest children resided primarily with the mother and ordered the father to pay retroactive and ongoing interim child support based on his 2020 income.

The issues of spousal support, imputation of income, and occupation rent were deferred to trial.

The court also ordered the father to provide the requested financial disclosure and granted the father's request for an appraisal of the matrimonial home and pension valuations.

The self-represented applicants brought a joint application to validate their religious marriage solemnized on May 2, 2019.

The parties had engaged in a religious marriage ceremony but were unaware of the requirement to obtain a valid marriage licence beforehand.

Applying the four-part test under section 31 of the Marriage Act, the court found that the marriage was solemnized in good faith, intended to comply with the Act, neither party was disqualified, and they subsequently cohabited as a married couple.

The application was granted and the marriage was deemed valid.

The applicants brought a joint application to validate their religious marriage ceremony, which took place without a valid marriage licence due to COVID-19 closures and restrictions.

The court applied the four-part test under section 31 of the Marriage Act.

Finding that the marriage was solemnized in good faith, intended to comply with the Act, neither party was disqualified, and the parties cohabited as a married couple, the court deemed the marriage valid.

The father brought a motion for an interim order to reinstate parenting time with his 11-year-old daughter, claiming the mother had alienated the child and unilaterally withheld access.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing the father's aggressive conduct and failure to abide by previous orders necessitated supervised reunification counselling.

The court found that the father was largely responsible for the breakdown in the relationship and his lack of parenting time.

Applying the best interests of the child factors under the Children's Law Reform Act, the court suspended the father's parenting time until he successfully engages in reunification counselling with a new counsellor at his own expense.