Sonya Notturno

The court considered an application by the father for shared decision-making and parenting time, and a response by the mother for primary residence, final decision-making, child and spousal support, and related relief.

After reviewing the parties’ history, the children’s needs, and the evidence of family violence and parental conduct, the court ordered primary residence and final decision-making with the mother, a specified parenting schedule for the father, child and spousal support, and prejudgment interest.

The court found the mother’s evidence more credible, noted the father’s undermining behaviour, and emphasized the best interests of the children, particularly in light of the son’s high needs and the impact of family violence.

The court heard a seven-day trial involving a separated couple with two children, one of whom has significant special needs.

The Applicant, suffering from a terminal illness, sought orders regarding parenting time, decision-making authority, child support (arrears and ongoing), spousal support (arrears and ongoing), and equalization of net family property, including enforcement of a religious marriage contract (mahr).

The Respondent, who became the primary caregiver due to the Applicant's declining health, sought to end spousal support, remove arrears, and gain exclusive decision-making power.

The court granted shared decision-making with the Respondent having the final say, ordered retroactive child support and ongoing spousal support (mid-range, time-limited but conditional on mahr payment), and enforced the $15,000 portion of the religious marriage contract as an equalization payment, while denying the gold lira portion due to lack of valuation evidence.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa sought extended society care for four children, aiming for adoption by their maternal grandmother, citing ongoing risks from parental conflict, inattentiveness, and lack of support.

The parents sought the children's return under a supervision order, proposing to live with the father's sister for support.

The court found that while some protection concerns minimally existed, the parents had made significant progress, particularly since the father's sobriety.

The court dismissed the Society's request for extended society care and ordered the children to be placed in the parents' care and custody, subject to a 12-month supervision order, finding this to be in the children's best interests and the least restrictive measure.

The applicant father sought sole decision-making and equal parenting time for the parties' six-year-old child.

The respondent mother sought sole decision-making and to maintain the father's alternate weekend parenting time.

The court found a high level of conflict, exacerbated by the mother's new partner, making joint decision-making unworkable.

The court ordered a parallel parenting regime, granting the father final decision-making over medical and religious matters, and the mother final decision-making over education and extracurricular activities.

The determination of a final parenting schedule was deferred pending updated evidence on the parties' circumstances.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a summary judgment motion seeking an order for extended society care for four children.

The parents opposed the motion, seeking a trial.

The court applied a highly cautionary approach to summary judgment in child protection matters, noting recent positive changes by the parents and questioning the admissibility and relevance of some of the Society's evidence, particularly police reports.

While dismissing the parents' argument regarding a custody order to the grandmother without her consent, the court found a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the best interests of the children, specifically between extended society care and a return to parental care under supervision.

The Society's motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

Following a four-day trial regarding child support, parenting time, and decision-making, the successful applicant sought costs of $30,000.

The court found the applicant was presumptively entitled to costs, beat her offer to settle, and acted reasonably, while the respondent acted unreasonably and delayed proceedings.

The court awarded the applicant $30,000 in costs, with 50% enforceable as support by the Family Responsibility Office.

The parties separated in 2011 and have one child.

The mother sought retroactive and ongoing child support, sole decision-making, and supervised parenting time for the father.

The father sought unsupervised parenting time and opposed the child support claims, arguing undue hardship and that support was not payable while the child was homeschooled.

The court found the father engaged in blameworthy conduct by ceasing support payments and ordered retroactive child support to November 2017.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making due to the father's abusive conduct and lack of insight.

The father's parenting time was ordered to remain supervised pending the outcome of an ongoing reunification counselling process.

The Applicant father sought supervised parenting time with his three children after the Respondent mother alleged sexual and physical abuse against him.

Two police investigations and two Children's Aid Society (CAS) investigations found the allegations not credible, and no charges were laid.

The mother opposed the motion, citing the children's disclosures and a need for more counselling.

The court granted the father interim supervised parenting time, emphasizing the lack of corroboration from police and CAS, and the mother's failure to provide specific particulars of the children's statements.

The court ordered incremental supervised visits with the assistance of mutual friends as supervisors and requested CAS support for logistics and child preparation.

During a Status Review Application, the mother experienced a crisis and the children were taken to a place of safety.

The Children's Aid Society sought a temporary order placing the children in its care, which the mother supported.

The father opposed the motion, seeking to have the children placed in his care and relocated to Toronto.

The court found it was in the best interests of the children to remain in Ottawa in the temporary care of the Society, with the possibility of expanded access for the father, including overnight visits.

The accused was charged with aggravated sexual assault contrary to section 273(2) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that the accused had non-consensual intercourse with the complainant without informing her of his HIV-positive status.

The central issues were whether the complainant slept in the couple's bed and whether sexual intercourse occurred.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable, rejected the accused's denials, and found him guilty of the charge.

The court applied the W.(D.) test to assess credibility and found that the complainant and the accused's wife provided consistent corroborating evidence regarding key details, while the accused's account was evasive and contradicted by both witnesses.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for a temporary court order placing the two-year-old child with the paternal grandmother.

The child had previously been residing with the maternal grandparents under a temporary supervision order, which included a condition that the mother not reside in their home.

The maternal grandparents breached this condition when the mother arrived in distress, leading to the child's apprehension.

The court found that the maternal grandparents had provided good care for two years and now understood the necessity of complying with the order.

The court ordered the child returned to the maternal grandparents under a temporary supervision order with conditions.

Following the settlement of all substantive issues in a high-conflict family law dispute, both the applicant and the respondent sought costs of not less than $30,000.

The court reviewed the history of the litigation, the parties' conduct, and the numerous offers to settle exchanged regarding custody, access, spousal support, and property equalization.

Finding that neither party achieved their original positions, that both parties were responsible for the protracted nature of the proceedings, and that success was divided, the court declined to award costs to either party.

Following a family law trial in which the mother obtained sole custody and primary residence of the child, the applicant sought costs of $10,000.

The court considered Rule 18 of the Family Law Rules and the parties’ conduct throughout the litigation.

The evidence demonstrated that the respondent’s inflexibility and litigation posture necessitated the trial and compelled the applicant to retain counsel.

The court found the applicant had been successful and that the claimed costs were reasonable in the circumstances.

The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant $10,000 in costs forthwith.

The applicant mother sought sole custody of the parties' four-year-old daughter, while the respondent father sought sole custody or, alternatively, joint custody with equal parenting time.

The parties had a history of communication difficulties and inability to agree on decision-making, despite the involvement of a parenting coordinator.

The court found that the father's proposed parenting plan prioritized his own interests over the child's and that joint custody was inappropriate given the ongoing conflict.

The mother was granted sole custody with final decision-making authority, and the father was granted specified access.

Sentencing following a guilty plea to assault causing bodily harm arising from a single punch during a dispute over rent money.

The victim suffered catastrophic injuries including a severe brain injury, permanent neurological damage, seizures, and permanent loss of independence.

The court considered the proportionality principle, the offender’s lack of criminal record, remorse, substance abuse history, and compliance with bail conditions against the devastating harm caused.

While the defence sought a conditional sentence, the court held that denunciation and deterrence required a custodial term.

A sentence of eight months’ incarceration followed by two years’ probation with strict abstinence and counselling conditions was imposed.

On a temporary care and custody motion under s. 51 of the Child and Family Services Act, the child protection agency sought an order placing a child in the temporary care and custody of the mother under the Society’s supervision with multiple conditions.

The child had previously been apprehended due to domestic violence exposure, concerns about the condition of the home, and questions regarding the mother’s mental health and cooperation with the Society.

The father opposed the motion and sought to maintain Society care while pursuing access.

The court applied the statutory test under s. 51(3) and emphasized the CFSA’s paramount objective of promoting the best interests, protection, and well-being of children while favouring the least disruptive course consistent with safety.

Finding that the child could be adequately protected through a supervision order and that the mother had taken meaningful steps to address protection concerns, the court ordered the child returned to the mother’s care subject to extensive conditions.