Stanley B. Sherr

The mother sought child support from the father for their four children, requesting an imputed income of $40,000-$50,000 per annum based on the Ontario Child Support Guidelines, retroactive support from April 2011, and contribution to orthodontic expenses.

The father claimed an income of $16,000-$17,000 per annum and opposed retroactive support.

The court found the father's income documentation unreliable and imputed an income of $40,000 per annum based on the mother's credible evidence regarding the family's lifestyle during cohabitation and the father's intentional under-employment.

The court ordered ongoing child support, retroactive support from May 1, 2011, and contribution to orthodontic expenses for three of the four children, with arrears payments deferred for one year.

An application for child support under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act brought by a godmother and caregiver residing in North Carolina against the child's mother residing in Ontario.

The respondent sought to reduce her support obligation based on undue hardship.

The court determined the appropriate start date for support, imputed income to the respondent based on her intentional unemployment, and dismissed the undue hardship claim.

The respondent was ordered to pay child support with arrears to be repaid over time.

The applicant mother sought temporary custody of two children (ages 9 and 10), child support, and permission to relocate with the children to Florida to accept a nursing position.

The respondent father opposed the relocation and sought temporary custody or, alternatively, joint custody with weekend access.

The court granted temporary custody to the mother but dismissed her motion to relocate to Florida on a temporary basis, finding that genuine issues required a trial.

The court ordered the father to pay child support and granted him access on two out of every three weekends, with alternating weeks during summer.

A referral was made to the Office of the Children's Lawyer to obtain independent evidence regarding the children's views and preferences.

The applicant sought costs of $20,615.23 following a successful motion for temporary spousal support in the amount of $1,125 per month.

The respondent conceded the applicant was the successful party but proposed costs of $5,000.

The court found the respondent acted in bad faith by structuring business affairs to hide assets, failing to provide accurate financial disclosure, providing multiple conflicting income estimates, and attempting to deceive the court about his true income.

The court awarded costs on a full recovery basis for the second phase of the case and partial indemnity for the first phase, fixing total costs at $15,000 inclusive of HST, fees and disbursements, payable forthwith and enforceable as an incident of support.

A child protection application under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act concerning a child apprehended at birth.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society sought a finding that the child was in need of protection and a crown wardship order without access for adoption purposes.

The respondent parents opposed the application and sought either dismissal or, alternatively, a society wardship order followed by a supervision order.

The court found the child was in need of protection based on the parents' extensive prior child protection history, the mother's criminal convictions including fraud offences, the father's inconsistent commitment to parenting, and the lack of a viable plan for the child's care.

The court made a crown wardship order without access, finding that permanency planning through adoption was in the child's best interests.

A child protection case involving an amended protection application by the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking a finding that a child born in 2010 is in need of protection due to parental alcohol and drug abuse.

The parents contested the application and sought placement of the child with them subject to society supervision.

The court found the child in need of protection under subsections 37(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and clause 37(2)(g) of the Child and Family Services Act based on evidence of chronic alcohol abuse by both parents, their lack of insight into the severity of their substance use, and the resulting risks of physical and emotional harm to the child.

The court made the child a crown ward without access for the purpose of adoption, finding that despite positive aspects of the parents' plan and their love for the child, the unaddressed alcohol abuse and inadequate safety plan posed unacceptable risks to the child's welfare and permanency needs.

This is a ruling on the admissibility of child statements made to police officers in a child protection proceeding.

The respondent mother sought to exclude statements made by two children (ages 14 and 12) to police, arguing that the necessity test should be applied to state of mind exceptions and that many statements did not qualify under that exception.

The court ruled that while the principled exception of necessity and reliability applies to categorical hearsay exceptions, this was not a rare case warranting application of the necessity requirement to state of mind statements.

The court admitted certain statements that clearly reflected the children's emotional and mental state at the time they were made, while excluding statements that were too intertwined with causation or allegations of parental conduct.

The court also excluded a police interview transcript sought to be admitted for the truth of its contents, finding it insufficiently reliable without cross-examination given the high stakes of the proceeding.

The applicant society sought to introduce the expert opinion evidence of a psychiatrist regarding the impact of substance abuse on parenting in a child protection trial.

The respondents opposed the admission of the evidence.

The court conducted a voir dire and applied the Mohan and Abbey tests for the admissibility of expert evidence.

The court found that the proposed evidence was neither relevant nor necessary, as the expert had not met the parents or the child and could only speak in generalities.

Furthermore, the expert was not properly qualified in the specific area of addictions, and the late service of the expert report caused undue prejudice to the respondents.

The request to introduce the expert evidence was denied.

A child protection agency sought to introduce expert psychiatric evidence regarding the impact of parental substance abuse on child parenting capacity.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine the admissibility of the expert evidence.

The respondent parents opposed the evidence on grounds of relevance, necessity, expert qualification, procedural non-compliance, and prejudicial effect.

The court excluded the evidence, finding it lacked relevance and necessity, the expert was not properly qualified in the specific area of substance abuse and parenting, and the probative value was substantially outweighed by prejudicial effect, particularly given inadequate notice and the risk of case delay contrary to the child's best interests.

A temporary care and custody motion under the Child and Family Services Act concerning a newborn child.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society sought to place the child in their care, while the mother sought placement with herself or alternatively with the maternal grandparents subject to supervision.

The court applied the two-part test requiring the society to establish reasonable grounds that the child would likely suffer harm if returned to the respondents and that the child could not be adequately protected by supervision terms.

While finding the first part satisfied regarding placement with the mother alone, the court determined that placement with the maternal grandparents, jointly with the mother and subject to strict supervision terms, was appropriate and the least disruptive alternative consistent with adequate child protection.

The respondent moved to set aside the registration of two child support orders from Polish courts.

The applicant did not appear.

The court initially set aside the orders due to lack of proper notice to the respondent.

Upon reconsideration as an original support application, the court found the respondent was the acknowledged father under Polish law and was entitled to child support.

The respondent's credibility was undermined by material omissions and contradictions in his evidence.

The court imputed income to the respondent and ordered retroactive child support from October 1, 2007, with arrears repayment provisions and specific termination conditions tied to confirmation of the child's school attendance.

The applicant sought temporary spousal support from the respondent following their separation after a seven-and-a-half-year cohabitation and less than one year of marriage.

The respondent had previously been ordered to pay $1,333 per month by Justice Zuker but failed to comply.

The court found the applicant entitled to spousal support on both compensatory and non-compensatory grounds.

The respondent's income was imputed at $100,000 per annum based on evidence of business underreporting and non-disclosure.

The applicant's income was assessed at $5,000 for 2011 and $10,000 annually thereafter.

The court awarded temporary spousal support of $1,125 per month, ordered repayment of arrears at $475 per month, imposed a non-depletion order, and required the respondent to deposit his passport with the court as security for compliance.

The respondent's pleadings were adjourned pending compliance with financial disclosure orders.

The applicant sought temporary child support for two children (ages 15 and 9) based on an imputed income of $25,000 per annum for the respondent, with support to commence November 1, 2011.

The respondent, who was on Ontario Works, argued he could not afford to pay and that no income should be imputed.

He also argued he should not pay support for the older child as she was not in school.

The court found the respondent was intentionally unemployed, rejected his arguments regarding the daughter's entitlement to support, and imputed income of $25,000 per annum.

The court ordered child support of $375 per month for November and December 2011, changing to $373 per month from January 1, 2012, with arrears to be paid at $75 per month starting June 1, 2012.

The applicant mother and respondent father both brought motions to change a final order that granted them joint custody with primary residence to the father.

Both parents sought sole custody.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the father's unilateral decision-making and a period where he denied the mother access.

However, applying the best interests of the child test, the court determined that the child was thriving in the father's care and that joint custody should continue.

The court established a detailed access schedule for the mother and declined to order child support as the mother was on social assistance.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a final custody order dated February 6, 2009, seeking sole custody of the child and child support.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion seeking sole custody with reduced access to the mother.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on the father's denial of access for over three months in 2009, unilateral decision-making contrary to the joint custody order, and an immunization incident demonstrating lack of communication.

The court maintained the joint custody arrangement with the child's primary residence remaining with the father, but modified the parenting schedule to provide the mother with three out of every four weekends, midweek access, and specified holiday arrangements.

The court rejected both parties' requests for sole custody, finding that while communication between the parties was imperfect, they had demonstrated sufficient cooperation since December 2010 to support a joint custody order with detailed specifications.

A costs endorsement following a motion for child support and orthodontic expenses.

The applicant sought costs of $3,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, while the respondent sought no costs award.

The court found the applicant was the successful party and had made a reasonable offer to settle on December 14, 2011, which complied with all conditions under subrule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The respondent's offer to settle was significantly less favourable than the final order.

The court awarded costs of $2,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, payable within 45 days, taking into account the respondent's ability to pay and the tax deductibility of legal fees for support recipients.

The respondent brought a motion to change child support orders dated October 4, 2010 and October 25, 2010.

The applicant opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion asking the court to decline jurisdiction, arguing that the appropriate forum was a U.S. state where she had relocated with the child after being served with the motion to change.

The court dismissed the applicant's jurisdictional motion, finding that Ontario had jurisdiction and that the applicant had not satisfied her onus to show that the foreign jurisdiction was more appropriate.

The court granted the respondent's motion to change in part, reducing the imputed income from $53,000 to $32,203 per annum, resulting in ongoing child support of $271 per month, and reducing arrears by $4,500 with a repayment schedule.

The applicant sought temporary child support for the parties' 15-year-old daughter and the respondent's pro-rata share of orthodontic expenses.

The respondent sought to fix his income at a lower amount based on medical reasons and undue hardship, and requested a reduction in child support to $300 per month.

The court fixed the respondent's income at $71,321 based on his 2010 tax return, rejected the undue hardship claim, and ordered child support at the guideline table amount.

The court also found that orthodontic treatment constituted a special expense and ordered the respondent to pay his pro-rata share after insurance coverage.

The mother brought a motion seeking leave to extend the time to file her Answer/Plan of Care to an amended status review application.

The child had been out of the mother's care for over 19 months and was thriving in the care of the maternal grandmother.

The mother had missed the filing deadline and had not seen the child for over five months.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the mother failed to present a realistic plan of care or establish that granting the extension was in the child's best interests, emphasizing the child's need for permanency.

The father brought a motion to change a 2010 child support order and reduce his accumulated arrears, arguing his income had decreased after he quit his second job for health reasons and was subsequently fired from his primary job.

The mother opposed the motion, alleging the father was hiding income and intentionally under-employed.

The court found the father's decision to quit his second job was reasonable due to health concerns, constituting a material change in circumstances.

However, the court imputed his income at $41,000, finding he could not rely on his recent dismissal for cause to further reduce support.

Due to the father's bad faith in failing to pay support and transferring assets, the court only adjusted support retroactively to January 2011 and ordered him to pay the remaining arrears at $250 per month.