Stanley B. Sherr

The respondent father brought a motion to change a restraining order made on June 6, 2017, which prohibited him from having any contact with the applicant mother and their six-year-old child.

The father sought to set aside the restraining order, or alternatively, to terminate it or change it to permit supervised access to the child.

The applicant mother opposed the motion and sought its dismissal.

The court dismissed the father's motion to set aside the restraining order, finding he did not move promptly and lacked a satisfactory excuse for his non-attendance at the original hearing.

The court also found no material change in circumstances warranting termination of the restraining order.

Finally, the court determined that access was not in the child's best interests at that time, given the father's history of severe domestic violence toward the mother, lack of meaningful change, dishonesty, and non-compliance with court orders.

The court dismissed the access claim but left open the possibility of future applications if the father demonstrated sustained constructive change.

This is a child protection trial concerning two children: N.B., a 10-year-old girl, and M.M., an 18-month-old girl.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto sought protection orders for both children based on risk of physical harm due to parental neglect and inability to provide adequate care.

The mother (Y.M.) and M.M.'s father (S.O.) opposed the applications, seeking return of the children to their care.

N.B.'s father (Y.B.) did not participate and was found in default.

The court found both children to be in need of protection.

N.B. was placed in the custody of kin caregivers with supervised access to the parents.

M.M. was placed in extended society care for adoption with limited supervised access to the parents.

The court found the parents lacked the stability, consistency, and reliability necessary to adequately parent the children, and that their poor functioning, dishonesty, housing instability, and lack of insight into protection concerns made return of the children inappropriate.

Following an oral decision granting the respondent mother temporary custody and supervised access to the applicant father, but dismissing her motion to travel, the mother sought costs of $3,200.

The court found divided success but noted the mother was successful on the dominant issue of access, which was necessitated by the father's abusive behaviour towards supervised access centre staff.

The court ordered the father to pay costs of $2,400, payable in monthly installments due to his limited financial resources.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that a child born prematurely to parents with significant histories of child protection involvement was in need of protection, and seeking an order for extended society care with no parental access.

The mother initially opposed the motion but ultimately consented to the protection finding and extended society care disposition.

The central issue became whether the mother should have access to the child.

The court ordered supervised access, finding it was in the child's best interests despite the mother's significant parenting limitations and the child's secure placement with a foster mother.

The decision provides important guidance on the application of the new access test under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, which represents a significant shift from the prior restrictive approach to access for children in extended society care.

A costs decision concerning counsel's conduct in a family law matter involving custody and child support claims.

The respondent's counsel repeatedly failed to attend court appearances despite being counsel of record, ignored court directions to explain her conduct, and failed to properly withdraw from the file.

The court found this conduct caused unnecessary costs to both the applicant and the respondent, and ordered the counsel to pay personal costs to both parties and to refrain from charging fees or disbursements for work on the case.

The respondent (father) brought a motion to find the applicant (mother) in contempt of the access provisions of a January 4, 2019 order.

The court dismissed the contempt motion.

The applicant sought costs of $4,746.

The respondent argued the costs were excessive.

The court awarded costs of $2,000 to the applicant, significantly discounting the claimed amount due to the applicant's inappropriate and abusive email communications to the respondent, which escalated animosity between the parties and contributed to the motion being brought, despite the respondent's motion being ill-conceived and lacking merit.

A child protection application brought by the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking to find an 8-month-old child in need of protection.

The central issue was whether the child qualified as a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The court determined that the child met the threshold for identification as a Métis child based on information from the maternal grandmother and great-grandmother, despite the lack of identified Métis communities in provincial regulations.

The court found the child in need of protection and ordered interim society care with a kinship assessment to proceed.

The mother brought a motion requesting that a previous costs order of $12,430 be defined as support so it could be enforced by the Family Responsibility Office.

The court dismissed the motion, noting that its authority to direct legal fees to be enforced by FRO is limited to costs awards arising out of support decisions.

Because the underlying trial dealt exclusively with parenting issues and a restraining order, the court had no authority to grant the requested relief, though it outlined other enforcement options available to the mother.

The applicant mother sought child support and contribution to section 7 expenses from the respondent father.

At trial, the father agreed to an imputed income of $81,000 and to pay half of camp and soccer expenses, but opposed contributing to childcare expenses and disputed the start date.

The court ordered the father to pay table support and half of the camp and soccer expenses starting July 1, 2018.

The court deviated from the proportional sharing of childcare expenses due to the father's other support obligations, ordering him to pay a fixed amount of $120 per month.

Following a trial regarding parenting arrangements and a restraining order, both parties sought costs.

The court found the mother to be the more successful party overall, despite divided success on some issues.

However, the court found the mother acted in bad faith by deliberately withholding videotape evidence that contradicted her claims, which significantly reduced her costs entitlement.

The father's request for costs personally against the mother's counsel was dismissed, as counsel's actions amounted to poor judgment rather than deliberate obstruction.

The father was ordered to pay the mother's costs fixed at $12,430.

In an uncontested trial, the applicant mother sought ongoing and retroactive child support, as well as section 7 expenses, from the respondent father.

The father, who is self-employed, failed to provide court-ordered financial disclosure or participate in the proceedings.

The court drew an adverse inference and imputed the father's annual income at $60,000 based on his lifestyle.

The court ordered the father to pay ongoing child support and his proportionate share of child care and tutoring expenses.

Applying the D.B.S. framework, the court also awarded retroactive child support to July 1, 2017, the date the mother gave effective notice.

The father was ordered to pay costs and prohibited from commencing further actions until he pays outstanding costs and provides financial disclosure.

Following a summary judgment that awarded custody and prospective child support to the mother, a focused trial was held to determine her claims for retroactive child support and section 7 expenses from 2012 to 2017.

Applying the D.B.S. framework, the court found the father engaged in blameworthy conduct by underpaying support, but noted the mother's delay and ambivalence in pursuing her claims, as well as the father's financial hardship.

Balancing these factors, the court ordered retroactive child support and section 7 expenses starting January 1, 2016, resulting in $8,276 in additional arrears.

To mitigate hardship, the father was permitted to pay the total arrears at a rate of $150 per month.

Following a trial regarding parenting and residency arrangements where the mother was granted custody, the court determined the issue of costs.

The mother sought $12,322.16, relying on an offer to settle that was more favourable to the father than the trial result.

The court found the mother was the successful party and her offer engaged the costs consequences of Rule 18(14).

However, the court exercised its discretion to 'order otherwise' due to the mother's unreasonable behaviour in denying access post-separation and moving without notice.

Considering the father's limited ability to pay and the mother's conduct, the court fixed costs at $5,000.

The respondent father sought a costs order personally against the applicant mother's lawyer after the lawyer failed to attend a scheduled Assignment Court appearance.

The lawyer had faxed a letter the day before stating he was out of the country and asking duty counsel to act for him, which resulted in the case losing its trial priority and the father incurring wasted legal fees.

The court applied the test for awarding costs against a lawyer personally under subrule 24(9) of the Family Law Rules.

Finding that the lawyer's conduct caused unnecessary costs and that he mishandled the scheduling conflict without apologizing, the court ordered the lawyer to personally pay $600 in costs to the respondent.

A trial concerning custody, access, and mobility of a two-year-old child.

The father sought sole custody and for the child to reside in Toronto, while the mother sought sole custody and permission to reside in Sault Ste.

Marie.

The court found the father had serious parenting deficiencies, including inadequate care of the child's medical needs, exposure to drug dealing, harsh parenting of the mother's other children, and emotionally abusive behaviour toward the mother.

The court granted sole custody to the mother and permitted the child to reside in Sault Ste.

Marie, finding the mother had valid and compelling reasons for the move and that the child was thriving in the new environment.

The court ordered a graduated access schedule for the father, beginning with day visits and progressing to overnight visits contingent on consistent exercise of access.

A father sought a refraining order to prevent the Director of the Family Responsibility Office from directing suspension of his driver's licence due to child support arrears of $30,352.93.

The father had paid no child support since a 2012 order requiring $426 monthly payments.

He proposed to begin payments of $426 plus $200 monthly toward arrears starting January 1, 2019, and undertook to bring a motion to change the support order.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the father failed to come to court with clean hands despite having steady employment and the ability to pay.

This is a costs decision following a one-day trial concerning child support arrangements for an eight-year-old child.

The court ordered the respondent father to pay child support based on an imputed annual income of $40,000, retroactive to July 1, 2014, and fixed his arrears at $17,489.

The applicant mother, acting in person, sought costs of $2,500.

The court awarded costs in full, applying subrule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules because the father failed to accept the mother's reasonable settlement offer, which resulted in a less favourable outcome for him at trial.

The applicant sought a refraining order to prevent the Director of the Family Responsibility Office from directing the suspension of his driver's licence pursuant to a Final Notice dated November 1, 2018.

The applicant had previously obtained a refraining order in August 2017 on terms requiring him to bring a motion to change the underlying support order and make specified monthly payments.

The applicant failed to comply with these terms, causing the refraining order to terminate automatically.

The court found it lacked jurisdiction to grant a refraining order in response to a Final Notice, as the statutory framework under Part V of the Family Arrears and Support Enforcement Act permits refraining orders only in response to a First Notice.

The motion was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

This is a costs endorsement following a one-day trial concerning parenting arrangements for two children.

The trial resulted in divided success: the mother obtained sole custody with decision-making authority on major issues, while the father obtained significantly expanded access beyond what he had previously enjoyed and successfully prevented the mother from changing the children's names or obtaining consent waivers for government documentation and international travel.

The court found both parties engaged in unreasonable behaviour during the proceedings.

The father sought costs of $10,000 while the mother sought no costs award.

The court fixed costs at $4,500 in favour of the father, payable at $500 per month commencing December 1, 2018.

The respondent (mother) sought spousal support from the applicant (father) following their divorce.

The central issue was whether the Ontario Court of Justice had jurisdiction to make a spousal support order, which required determining whether the parties were still spouses when the mother filed her claim.

The applicant obtained a divorce judgment on October 20, 2017, but the divorce did not take effect until November 20, 2017 (31 days later).

The mother filed her spousal support claim on November 10, 2017, while the parties were still technically married.

The court held that the parties remained spouses until the divorce took effect and therefore the court had jurisdiction to hear the spousal support claim.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their actions against a solicitor for breach of undertaking and against a corporate defendant for fraudulent conveyance.

The solicitor had released holdback funds after confirming with the architect that deficiencies were rectified, fulfilling the terms of the undertaking despite an initial breach.

The trial judge also found that the corporate defendant held the transferred property as a bare trustee, defeating the fraudulent conveyance claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error as the issues were primarily based on credibility assessments.

The complainant union filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint under section 81 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that a grievance filed by a rival union against a general contractor regarding a subcontracting clause constituted a demand for work assignment.

The Board dismissed the complaint, holding that the mere filing of a grievance against a general contractor does not amount to requiring an employer to assign particular work to persons in a particular trade union within the meaning of section 81(1).

The Board reviewed the legislative history and jurisprudence, concluding that the general contractor is not the 'employer' making the work assignment in this context.