Somji

The applicant mother sought a final order for decision-making responsibility and primary residence of the parties' two children, as well as supervised parenting time for the respondent father.

The father failed to file an Answer or appear, and the matter proceeded as an uncontested trial.

The court applied the best interests of the child test under the Children's Law Reform Act, considering the history of family violence, the father's substance abuse, and the mother's role as primary caregiver.

The court granted the mother decision-making responsibility and primary residence, and ordered supervised parenting time for the father.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa applied for an order placing a two-year-old Inuit child in extended society care with a view to adoption.

The mother struggled with long-standing addiction and mental health issues, lacked stable housing, and failed to consistently visit the child or engage with support services.

The father resided in Nunavut and was unable to care for the child.

The court found the child in need of protection due to the risk of physical and emotional harm.

Applying the best interests factors under the CYFSA and the federal FNIM Act, the court ordered extended society care with a view to adoption, prioritizing placement with an Inuit family to maintain cultural continuity.

Access was granted to both parents at the Society's discretion.

The father brought a motion to terminate child support for his 19-year-old daughter.

The mother opposed and sought a retroactive increase in child support and arrears, arguing the father failed to disclose income increases.

Applying the Colucci framework, the court found the father's failure to disclose income constituted blameworthy conduct and ordered retroactive child support to March 2018, three years prior to formal notice.

The court declined to credit the father for discretionary payments made outside of child support.

Ongoing child support was ordered to continue as the child was enrolled in university.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a 2017 final order regarding parenting and child support.

The father had failed to provide financial disclosure for several years.

The court granted the mother final decision-making responsibility over education and health due to the father's lack of cooperation and the special needs of one child.

Primary residence remained with the mother with the father having weekend parenting time.

Applying the Colucci framework, the court ordered the father to pay $13,925.48 in retroactive child support arrears due to his increased income and failure to disclose, and set ongoing support at $808.76 per month.

The respondent mother brought a motion for an interim order for child support arrears and ongoing section 7 expenses, including costs for competitive hockey and swimming.

The father agreed to pay table support and his share of childcare, medical, and educational expenses, but disputed the arrears calculation and his ability to afford competitive sports.

The court dismissed the claim for 2020 child support arrears and deferred the 2019 arrears claim for further submissions based on the Colucci framework.

The court ordered the father to contribute to tutoring, laptops, and specific tournament fees, but found the mother failed to establish that the base costs of competitive hockey and swimming were necessary, reasonable, or consented to as extraordinary expenses.

The respondent mother sought costs of $7,200 on a substantial indemnity basis following her successful defense of the applicant father's motion to compel the interim sale of the matrimonial home.

The father argued for mixed success and that the parties should bear their own costs due to the mother's alleged unreasonable conduct.

The court found the mother was the successful party and that her conduct was reasonable.

However, the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the father's refusal to accept an offer to purchase his share did not warrant an elevated award.

Costs were fixed at $3,600 payable by the father to the mother.

Following a family law trial where the respondent father was largely successful on the dominant issue of parenting, he sought costs of $54,000.

The applicant mother argued costs should be limited to $1,000 due to her limited ability to pay and partial success on property issues.

The court found the mother's conduct unreasonable, particularly her persistent refusal to share parenting and her unfounded allegations of family violence.

After considering the mother's severable offer on debts and her ability to pay, the court ordered the mother to pay fixed costs of $45,000 to the father.

The applicant mother brought an application for sole decision-making responsibility, parenting time, and child support.

The respondent father failed to respond, and the matter proceeded as an uncontested trial.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, citing concerns about the father's alcohol addiction and stability.

The father was granted parenting time subject to conditions, including abstaining from alcohol, and was ordered to pay child support based on an imputed income.

The applicant brought an application challenging the allegedly unauthorized transfer of an interest in his residential property to his former fiancé, creating a joint tenancy.

The applicant also sought a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL).

Following the applicant's death, his estate brought a motion for an Order to Continue the proceeding.

The court granted the Order to Continue and, on consent of the respondent, issued the CPL to preserve the property pending litigation.

The applicant father brought a motion for the interim sale of two jointly owned properties under s. 2 of the Partition Act.

The respondent mother consented to the sale of the rental property but opposed the sale of the family home, seeking exclusive possession.

The court found that the mother's right to claim exclusive possession under the Family Law Act was extinguished upon the parties' divorce.

However, the court denied the father's request to sell the family home, finding that he failed to plead the Partition Act in his original application.

Furthermore, the court exercised its discretion to refuse the interim sale under the Partition Act, citing the hardship it would cause the mother and children, the mother's offer to purchase the father's interest, and the need to resolve equalization issues at trial.

The parties separated after an 18-year relationship.

The mother sought sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of their 9-year-old child, while the father sought joint decision-making and equal parenting time.

The court found that both parents were fit and capable, and that the mother's allegations of family violence against the father were largely unsubstantiated or did not warrant a parenting order in her favour.

The court ordered joint decision-making and primary residence with the mother due to the child's established life in Renfrew, but granted the father significant parenting time.

The court also ordered the division of the matrimonial home and equalization of property, and directed the father to pay Guideline child support.

The plaintiffs, commercial tenants of a sports bar, sought leave to amend their statement of claim against the defendant landlord to add claims under the Occupiers' Liability Act and for punitive damages related to toxic mold on the premises.

The defendant opposed, arguing the amendments constituted new causes of action that were statute-barred.

The court granted the motion, finding that the original claim contained sufficient material facts regarding the defendant's control of the premises and alleged bad faith conduct, such that the amendments merely particularized existing claims and did not constitute new causes of action.

The applicant mother brought an application for divorce, sole decision-making responsibility, child support, and property division.

The respondent father failed to file an Answer and the matter proceeded as an uncontested trial.

The court granted the divorce, awarded the mother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, and limited the father's parenting time to supervised virtual contact due to pending criminal charges for domestic violence.

The court also ordered an equalization payment of $22,985 for RRSPs, imputed the father's income at minimum wage for child support purposes, and issued a restraining order against the father.

The father brought a motion to terminate his child support obligations for the parties' child, effective March 3, 2012, when the child moved in with him.

The mother filed an Answer but failed to attend the settlement conference and the uncontested trial.

The court found that the child had resided with the father since March 2012 and that the father had satisfied his child support obligations.

The court ordered the termination of child support effective March 3, 2012, and fixed the arrears owed to the mother at $0.00.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a six-month supervision order to return two children to the care of their mother, with scheduled contact for the father.

The mother and her new partner had taken significant steps to address addiction and child protection concerns, and the father, though unable to care for the children, supported their return to the mother.

The court found no genuine issue for trial and granted the summary judgment, holding that returning the children to the mother and allowing contact with the father was in their best interests, particularly given their Indigenous heritage.

The moving party father brought a motion for interim primary residential care of the parties' three children, alleging that the responding party mother had alienated the children from him following a child protection intervention.

The mother and the Office of the Children's Lawyer opposed the motion, arguing that the children wished to remain with the mother and that a forced separation could be traumatic.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding that the facts regarding the family's history and the allegations of alienation were highly contested and could not be resolved on a written record alone.

The court maintained the status quo of the mother having interim sole custody, ordered reunification counselling, and expedited the matter for trial.

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

He argued the arresting officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds for a breath demand because she mistakenly arrested him for 'over 80' instead of 'impaired driving', and that the trial judge erred in admitting the breath samples under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, finding the officer had both subjective and objective grounds to make the breath demand based on the totality of the circumstances, and that the trial judge correctly admitted the evidence despite the minor s. 9 Charter breach.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking interim sole custody and permission to relocate her two children, a 9-year-old from a previous relationship and a 12-month-old with the respondent father, from Stittsville to Deep River.

The father opposed the relocation of his biological child and sought interim joint custody and primary residence.

The court dismissed the mother's request to relocate the 12-month-old, finding she had not established compelling reasons to upset the status quo on an interim basis.

The court ordered interim joint custody, with the child to reside primarily with the father in the matrimonial home, and granted the mother weekend access.

The court also dismissed the mother's claim for interim child support for the 9-year-old step-child, finding no prima facie case that the father stood in the place of a parent.