Stanley B. Sherr

The respondent father brought a motion to change a child support order dated January 4, 2006, seeking to rescind all arrears.

The applicant mother did not respond and was noted in default.

The father claimed he had suffered a motor vehicle accident on December 21, 2011, resulting in injuries and depression that prevented him from working.

The court found that while the father's present ability to work had been compromised, he failed to establish a permanent future inability to pay.

The court terminated ongoing support obligations but rescinded only the arrears owing to the mother.

The arrears owing to the City of Toronto (assignee) were fixed at $31,000, with the father ordered to repay at $150 per month commencing March 1, 2015.

A default order was issued providing for jail time for non-compliance.

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

The court previously reduced the respondent father's support arrears by $6,468 and revived his child support obligation as of September 1, 2014, while ordering him to contribute to the child's special expenses.

The court found divided success at trial, with the father slightly more successful due to the arrears reduction.

Despite both parties behaving unreasonably by failing to make settlement offers, the court ordered the mother to pay the father's costs of $1,200, payable at $100 per month, considering the mother's unreasonable refusal to terminate support and her obligation to report to the Family Responsibility Office.

Both parties brought motions to change a child support order dated December 9, 2011, and the child support terms in their separation agreement dated May 27, 2002.

The applicant sought to impute the respondent's income at $375,000 per annum, require payment of guideline table amounts and section 7 expenses, and obtain retroactive support and RESP relief.

The respondent sought to fix his income at $218,211 per annum, impute the applicant's income at $140,000 per annum, reduce support for a child attending university away from home, and obtain retroactive adjustments and overpayment credits.

The court found material changes in circumstances, fixed the respondent's income at $218,211 per annum and the applicant's at $100,000 per annum, determined that private school expenses are section 7 expenses to be shared proportionally, found the guideline amount inappropriate for the child attending university away from home, and declined to make retroactive orders.

The court issued a consolidated child support order of $5,517 per month effective January 1, 2015, incorporating both table support and section 7 expenses.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a child support order dated November 6, 2008, seeking to reduce his child support obligations for his 22-year-old daughter and to reduce his support arrears.

The applicant mother opposed the motion.

The Director of the Family Responsibility Office brought a concurrent default proceeding.

The court found that while there had been a change in circumstances since 2008 due to the father's additional health issues and age, the father's evidence was not credible and he had demonstrated a pattern of non-compliance with support obligations.

The court reduced the arrears from approximately $19,267 to $12,000 and set ongoing child support at $250 per month based on an imputed income of $30,440 per annum.

The court ordered the father to repay arrears at $200 per month during the child's entitlement period and $450 per month thereafter, with a default order providing for jail time for non-compliance.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a child support order dated October 26, 2007, seeking to terminate his obligation to pay $462 per month for his adult son.

The father argued the child became disentitled to support as of July 1, 2013, when the child ceased full-time education.

The applicant mother opposed the motion and sought a contribution to post-secondary education expenses.

The court found that while the child was disentitled to support from July 1, 2013 to August 31, 2014, the child's entitlement revived when he returned to full-time education in September 2014.

The father received a credit for arrears during the period of disentitlement.

The court maintained the father's imputed income at $50,000 per annum and ordered him to contribute to post-secondary education expenses.

This is a costs decision following a motion in a family law matter concerning the relocation of a child to Montreal.

The mother was granted permission to move with the child and obtained temporary access orders for the father.

The mother sought full recovery of costs in the amount of $14,749.16, while the father sought no costs order.

The court found the mother was the successful party on the dominant issue and awarded costs, but reduced the amount to $6,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, payable in monthly instalments of $100 commencing January 1, 2015.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society sought a warrant to apprehend and return a child in care pursuant to subsection 41(1) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The child, age 13, had run away from foster care for the third time since July 2014.

The respondent mother supported the application.

The court determined that a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice has authority to issue such a warrant when acting as a justice of the peace under section 5 of the Justices of the Peace Act.

The evidence met the statutory test: the child was under 16, had left care without consent, and there were reasonable and probable grounds that no other course of action would adequately protect the child.

The warrant was granted.

The parties brought cross-motions for temporary custody and access of their two children, both of whom have Autism Spectrum Disorder.

The mother sought sole custody and full child support, while the father sought joint custody and a deferral or reduction of child support based on a shared parenting arrangement.

The court granted the mother temporary sole custody due to the parents' poor communication and the father's unilateral decision-making, but maintained a shared parenting schedule.

The court found the father's parenting time exceeded the 40% threshold under section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines and ordered him to pay $500 per month in temporary child support, factoring in the increased costs of shared custody and the parties' respective financial circumstances.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society brought a motion seeking a declaration that T.O.M., the biological father of a 15-year-old child, is not a parent within the meaning of the Child and Family Services Act.

The motion was supported by the child's mother and the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that T.O.M. qualifies as a parent under the statutory definition because he was married to the child's mother at the time of birth, which triggers the presumption of paternity under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court held that separation at the time of birth does not constitute an exception to the statutory definition of parent.

The mother sought to set aside or change a custody order (the Nevins order) that granted custody of four children to the father after the mother unlawfully retained the children in India beyond the permitted four-week travel period.

The mother claimed she had the father's consent to remain in India until the end of the school year and that she was unaware of Canadian court orders requiring the children's return.

The court rejected the mother's evidence as not credible, finding she had deliberately removed the children from the jurisdiction, ignored court orders, and misrepresented facts to authorities.

The court dismissed the mother's motion to set aside the Nevins order and her motion to change custody based on material change in circumstances.

The court confirmed the father's custody and granted the mother generous access with strict conditions, including passport restrictions and a non-removal clause, due to flight risk concerns.

The court awarded costs to the paternal aunt following the dismissal of the father's motion to set aside a final custody order dated April 24, 2012.

The father's motion, filed in January 2013, sought to set aside the order and obtain temporary access to his child.

The paternal aunt filed a cross-motion for a restraining order.

The case proceeded through multiple court appearances and case conferences over approximately 20 months.

The paternal aunt made an Offer to Settle on January 20, 2014, offering to settle the motion if the father withdrew it and paid $2,500 in costs.

The father rejected the offer and proceeded to hearing, where his motion was dismissed.

The court found the offer was more favourable to the father than the final result and applied the costs consequences under subrule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The court awarded costs of $8,800 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

A summary judgment motion brought by the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking to make two children crown wards without access to their parents for the purpose of adoption.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing there were triable issues regarding placement in her care or with alternative caregivers.

The father of one child consented to crown wardship but opposed the no-access provision.

The court found no triable issue regarding disposition and ordered the children to be made crown wards, but found triable issues regarding access that required a full trial to determine.

This is a costs decision following a motion hearing on family law matters.

The court had previously ordered the respondent (father) to pay temporary child support of $1,331 per month and spousal support of $350 per month, and granted the applicant (mother) supervised access to the children with a prohibition on removal from Ontario.

The applicant sought costs of either $9,859.69 or alternatively $6,017.69.

The court assessed costs considering the parties' conduct, the lack of settlement offers, the proportionality of time claimed, and the complexity of the issues.

The court awarded costs of $3,800 inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable within 45 days.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a protection application seeking crown wardship of M.B., born in 2011, with no access order.

The respondent mother opposed the application and sought placement of the child with her, or alternatively with her and her stepfather subject to society supervision.

The respondent father died of a drug overdose in December 2013.

The court found the child in need of protection pursuant to clause 37(2)(b) of the Child and Family Services Act based on the mother's young age, immaturity, transience, unstable housing, poor judgment, failure to engage in services, inconsistent access, and lack of insight into protection concerns.

The court made the child a crown ward but granted the mother access on alternate Saturdays, finding that the relationship was beneficial and meaningful to the child and that access would not impair the child's opportunity for adoption.

The father brought a motion to set aside a final custody order dated April 24, 2012, which granted custody of the child to the aunt on a default basis.

The father claimed he was not properly served with the application and that the aunt committed fraud.

The court found that the father was properly served with the court documents, signed acknowledgement of service cards with full knowledge of their contents, and was well aware of the court case.

The court also considered the father's delay in bringing the motion, his failure to promptly pursue the motion while taking substantive steps in the case (the "fresh step" principle), and the prejudice to the aunt and child.

The motion was dismissed.

The mother brought motions for temporary child support, spousal support, financial disclosure, delivery of children's documents, and surrender of the father's passport as security.

The father, residing in Bermuda, brought a cross-motion for unsupervised access including extended access in Bermuda.

The court granted supervised access at APCO pending further investigation, ordered the father to pay child support and spousal support, prohibited removal of children from Ontario, and dismissed the passport security request.

The court adjourned the access motion pending referral to the Office of the Children's Lawyer and receipt of Children's Aid Society records.

Both parents brought motions to change child support provisions in a consent order from April 8, 2013.

The child, Shannon, had suspended her full-time education in June 2012 but returned to college full-time on January 6, 2014, to complete an Advanced Therapist Course ending October 3, 2014.

The father sought termination of support effective January 1, 2014, while the mother sought revival of support including a contribution to post-secondary expenses.

The court found a sufficient change in circumstances to assess the order and determined that child support should be revived for the nine-month period Shannon was in school.

The court applied the Child Support Guidelines table amount and required the child to contribute additional funds to post-secondary expenses.

The father received credits for direct payments made to the child and a previously ordered overpayment credit, resulting in a net payment of $7,030 due within 45 days.

An application for spousal support brought under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act by a spouse residing in Nova Scotia against a spouse residing in Ontario.

The applicant sought indefinite ongoing spousal support retroactive to February 1, 2013, in the amount of $1,500 per month.

The court found entitlement to spousal support on both compensatory and non-compensatory grounds based on the applicant's role as primary caregiver and household manager, which compromised her income-earning potential.

The court declined to award retroactive support but ordered prospective support commencing from the date of service of the application.

The court awarded $1,200 per month indefinite spousal support, with arrears calculated and a repayment schedule established.

This is a costs decision following a trial in a parenting and child support case.

The respondent (mother) was granted custody of the two children and the applicant (father) was granted graduated access.

The father was ordered to pay child support based on imputed income.

The mother sought full recovery of costs at $8,358.50, while the father sought no costs order.

The court found the mother was the successful party on custody and access issues, with divided success on child support.

The court awarded costs to the mother in the amount of $4,200, inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, payable in monthly instalments of $200 commencing October 1, 2014.

This is a costs decision following a motion to change child support.

The applicant mother, acting in person, sought costs of $1,799.33 after successfully obtaining an order for $20,937 in retroactive child support and $1,393 per month in ongoing child support.

The respondent father opposed any costs award.

The court found the mother was the successful party and awarded costs in the amount of $1,200, inclusive of fees and disbursements, payable within 60 days.