Stanley B. Sherr

A trial concerning child support obligations for a five-year-old child.

The mother sought retroactive child support from January 1, 2012, later moderated to January 1, 2012, including the father's proportionate share of childcare expenses under section 7 of the Child Support Guidelines.

The father sought to limit his obligation to January 1, 2015.

The court found the father engaged in blameworthy conduct by failing to meet his support obligations despite awareness of them.

Applying the D.B.S. factors, the court ordered retroactive support from January 1, 2013, and awarded section 7 childcare expenses.

The father was ordered to pay arrears of $16,958 within 60 days.

Motion to change a custody and child support order.

The father sought sole custody and termination of child support.

The mother sought sole custody and increased child support.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the mother's alcohol abuse, criminal charges, and exposure of the child to domestic conflict.

The court maintained joint custody with a shared parenting arrangement (alternating weeks), finding both parents capable but concerned about the mother's stability.

Child support was adjusted retroactively and prospectively, with the father's income imputed to the mother for calculation purposes under section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines.

The respondent mother brought a motion for summary judgment seeking sole custody of three children, no access or supervised access for the applicant father, child support, and a restraining order.

The applicant father sought joint custody and equal time-sharing.

The court granted summary judgment on most issues, finding no genuine issue requiring trial regarding custody, restraining order, and child support.

On the issue of access, the court applied expanded summary judgment powers to determine that supervised access should continue at the Toronto Supervised Access Centre rather than terminating access entirely, as the children benefit from their relationship with their father despite his history of alcohol abuse, failure to pay support, and concerning behaviour.

A child protection application under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act seeking a finding that a child born in 2013 is in need of protection and should be made a crown ward with no access for the purpose of adoption.

The respondent mother, aged 19 at trial, opposed the application and sought return of the child to her care, alternatively to the grandmother's care.

The respondent father did not participate and was noted in default.

The child had been apprehended twice and was in the society's care for over 20 months.

The court found the child in need of protection based on the mother's immaturity, anger management issues, depression, poor judgment, inability to maintain stable housing, and failure to comply with court orders and supervision terms.

The court rejected both the mother's and grandmother's plans as inadequate to protect the child and made the child a crown ward with no access to facilitate adoption.

A focused trial was held regarding custody of a six-year-old child.

The applicant father served trial affidavits within ordered timelines.

The respondent mother did not file affidavits and advised on May 21, 2015 that she would not oppose the father's requests for custody and government documentation, with some restrictions on international travel.

Final orders granted custody to the father, authority to obtain government documentation without respondent consent, and permission to travel with the child outside Canada for vacation purposes.

The father sought costs of the focused hearing.

The court found the father was the successful party and that the mother acted unreasonably in requiring the father to prepare for trial.

Costs were awarded to the father.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion for temporary spousal support in a family law matter.

The applicant (mother) sought temporary spousal support and was awarded $900 per month effective January 1, 2015, though she had requested $1,634 per month.

The respondent (father) opposed the motion and failed to make an offer to settle.

The court found divided success on the motion, with the mother successful in obtaining support but unsuccessful in her attempt to impute additional income to the father.

The court awarded costs to the mother in the amount of $5,000, payable at $250 per month, considering the reasonableness of the parties' behaviour, the complexity of the issues, and the father's limited financial circumstances.

This is a costs decision following a four-day trial concerning parenting and support arrangements for the parties' child.

The applicant (father) sought no costs order, while the respondent (mother) claimed costs of $15,097.25 for legal assistance received during the litigation.

The court found the mother was the successful party based on comparison of settlement offers and trial positions.

The court awarded costs of $10,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable within 90 days.

The court declined to award costs for work done at prior steps in the case, limiting the award to work performed for the trial step.

This is a costs decision following a three-day Hague Convention hearing in which the court ordered the mother to return two children to their habitual residence in North Carolina and stayed the mother's custody claim.

The respondent father sought full recovery of costs totalling $38,304.87, while the mother sought no costs award.

The court awarded costs of $20,000 to the father, inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, with payment suspended for one year to allow the mother to regularize her immigration status and stabilize her living arrangements with the children.

The court permitted enforcement against the mother's real property interests and set-off against any property settlement or division owing to her.

The mother brought a motion seeking temporary spousal support of $1,698 per month from the father, effective January 1, 2015.

The father argued he had no ability to pay.

The court found the mother had strong compensatory and non-compensatory claims based on a traditional 17-year marriage and significant income disparity.

While acknowledging the father's substantial child support obligations and therapeutic expenses for the children in care of child protective services, the court determined these did not eliminate his spousal support obligations.

The court ordered temporary spousal support of $900 per month, representing approximately 40% of the parties' net disposable income after accounting for child support payments and additional child-related expenses.

A custody and access trial involving two unmarried parents engaged in prolonged high-conflict litigation over their six-year-old son since his first birthday.

The father sought sole custody or joint custody with medical decision-making authority and a rotating weekly parenting schedule.

The mother sought joint custody with final decision-making authority over medical and schooling matters, or alternatively sole custody, with the father having alternate weekend access.

The court found that joint custody was not in the child's best interests due to the parents' extremely poor communication, complete lack of respect and trust, and ongoing power struggles.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother while granting the father substantial access rights, including two out of every three weekends and mid-week access, with detailed provisions protecting his involvement in medical and school decisions.

Child support was set at $700 per month under section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines.

This is a costs endorsement following a half-day trial on child support.

The father was ordered to pay child support of $384 per month retroactive to January 1, 2014, based on an imputed annual income of $42,500.

The mother sought full recovery of costs in the amount of $4,212.20.

The court awarded costs to the mother in the reduced amount of $3,600, inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, payable at $200 per month commencing May 1, 2015.

The court found the father's position that he had no ability to pay was unreasonable, that he failed to comply with financial disclosure orders, and that he did not make reasonable settlement efforts.

The respondent mother wrongfully removed two children from their habitual residence in North Carolina to Ontario.

The applicant father sought the return of the children pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, alternatively seeking recognition and enforcement of a North Carolina custody order, or an order under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court found that the removal was wrongful under Article 3 of the Hague Convention, that no grave risk exception applied under Article 13(b), and that the North Carolina order could not be recognized due to lack of reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard.

The court ordered the return of the children to North Carolina with specific undertakings and conditions to protect the mother during the transition.

This is a costs decision following a four-day family law trial in which the respondent (father) was granted custody of four children and the applicant (mother) was given specified access.

The father sought costs of $36,692.31, while the mother submitted that costs should be fixed at $20,321.36.

The court considered the father's offer to settle dated January 5, 2015, which the mother failed to accept despite it being more favourable than the final judgment.

The court applied the presumption of costs in favour of the successful party and considered factors including the complexity of the case, the reasonableness of each party's behaviour, counsel's rates, time spent, and the mother's ability to pay.

A trial concerning child support obligations for a three-year-old child.

The mother sought to impute income to the father at $45,000 per annum and requested child support of $406 per month retroactive to January 1, 2014.

The father claimed he was unemployed and receiving social assistance.

The court found the father was intentionally underemployed, imputed income at $42,500 per annum, and ordered child support of $384 per month retroactive to January 1, 2014, with arrears to be repaid at $125 per month commencing April 1, 2015.

The Children's Aid Society sought a temporary care and custody order for two young children following their apprehension.

The mother opposed the application and sought dismissal or alternative placements with herself or her mother.

The father sought placement with himself or his mother.

The court applied the two-part test under section 51(3) of the Child and Family Services Act and found reasonable grounds to believe the children would suffer harm if returned to either parent and that they could not be adequately protected by supervision orders.

The court placed the children in the temporary care of the society with supervised access to the mother and no access to the father pending further order.

This is a costs endorsement following a two-day family law trial in which the applicant (mother) was granted sole custody of a one-year-old child, permission to relocate to Japan, and the respondent (father) was ordered to pay child support based on imputed income.

The mother sought costs of $4,258.71 while the father requested no costs award.

The court awarded costs to the successful party (the mother) in the amount of $3,600 inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, payable in monthly instalments of $100 commencing April 1, 2015.

This is a costs decision following the dismissal of a motion to change a custody and access order.

The mother sought full recovery of costs ($14,046.58) after successfully defending against the father's motion to change, which sought access to three children and termination of a restraining order.

The father's motion was dismissed on the basis that he had not established a material change in circumstances.

The court awarded costs to the mother as the successful party, but reduced the amount to $7,200 (inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST) after considering the factors under the Family Law Rules, the father's limited financial circumstances, and the principle that costs awards must be proportional to the amount in issue and the outcome.

Father sought to change a 2002 custody order and obtain original orders regarding two younger children.

The mother opposed the application.

The court found a material change in circumstances affecting the best interests of the two older children, who had moved in with the father and expressed a clear preference to remain with him.

The court awarded sole custody of all four children to the father, finding the mother lacked credibility, had demonstrated poor judgment, financial mismanagement, and inability to meet the children's educational and special needs.

The mother was granted generous access to the two younger children on alternate weekends through a supervised access centre, with specific holiday provisions.

The court declined to order child support, finding it fundamentally unjust to raise this issue in closing submissions after the mother had relied on the father's earlier representation that he would not pursue it.

This is a costs endorsement following motions to change a child support order.

The court previously determined that no support was owing by either party as of December 31, 2014, and set out the respondent's ongoing support obligations for two children.

Both parties sought costs.

The respondent sought $18,654.56 and the applicant sought $10,000.

The court found the respondent was the substantially successful party based on the positions taken at the hearing and the offers to settle.

The respondent's offer was close to the final result, while the applicant's offer was significantly less favourable.

The court awarded costs to the respondent in the amount of $7,000, payable at $500 per month starting March 1, 2015.

The father brought a motion to change a July 2013 order granting the mother sole custody of three children with no access to the father and a restraining order.

The father claimed a material change in circumstances, citing withdrawal of criminal charges, completion of an anger management program, and stabilized mental health.

The mother opposed the motion and sought to dismiss it.

The court found that while the father demonstrated some changes, these did not constitute a material change in circumstances affecting the best interests of the children.

The court was troubled by the father's lack of credibility, his false statements in affidavits about his mental health and criminal history, and his continued denial of abuse allegations despite corroborating police and medical records.

The motion was dismissed, and the father was prohibited from bringing further motions to change prior to January 1, 2016 without court permission.