Stanley B. Sherr

Two unmarried parents brought competing temporary motions to determine school and daycare placements for their two young children following their separation.

The father sought to enroll the older child at Bialik Hebrew Day School and the younger child at Super Kids Daycare.

The mother opposed Bialik and sought enrollment at Bala Community School and Jubilee Daycare.

The court applied the best interests of the child analysis under the Children's Law Reform Act, considering factors including stability, parental capacity, cultural heritage, and exposure to parental conflict.

The court ordered that the older child attend Dennis Avenue Community School and the younger child continue at Super Kids Daycare on a temporary basis.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion to change parenting terms for a 12-year-old child.

The court granted the respondent (mother) sole custody, removed the applicant's (father) access to the child, and imposed restrictions on the father's social media conduct.

The mother sought costs of $33,948.47, while the father argued costs should not exceed $18,672.

The court awarded costs of $25,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST to the mother.

The decision addresses the application of Family Law Rules costs provisions, the timing and effect of settlement offers, and the distinction between unreasonable behaviour and bad faith conduct.

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

The father sought to modify a December 2016 consent order by requesting equal parenting time, a change to the child's school, and child support.

The mother successfully defended the motion and sought costs of $23,000.

The father proposed costs be fixed at $5,000.

The court awarded costs of $15,344.36, payable in monthly installments, finding that the father should have accepted the mother's settlement offer which was more favourable than the final result.

The court considered the father's financial circumstances, the straightforward nature of the matter, and the proportionality of costs in fixing the award.

This is a motion for an extension of time to file costs submissions in a family law matter involving a change to parenting terms.

The applicant (father) had been denied custody and access to the parties' 12-year-old child.

The respondent (mother) sought to file her costs submissions five days late due to inadvertence by her counsel.

The court granted the extension, finding that the brief delay, reasonable explanation, lack of prejudice to the other party, and the injustice of depriving the mother of her costs justified the extension.

The respondent father brought a motion to set aside a temporary consent order dated November 6, 2017, which permitted the applicant mother to amend her application to include a child support claim for an additional child and required the father to provide specified financial disclosure.

The father also sought an investigation for professional misconduct against the duty counsel and the mother's counsel.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence of fraud, collusion, deceit, negligence, misrepresentation, duress, or undue influence.

The father had participated in negotiating the consent order, received advice from duty counsel, signed the consent knowingly, and took a fresh step by filing an amended answer before objecting to the order.

The court awarded costs against the father.

This is a costs endorsement following a three-day trial concerning parenting and child support arrangements for three children.

The applicant (mother) sought costs of $34,843 after obtaining a successful judgment on most issues, including sole custody of the children.

The respondent (father) failed to file costs submissions within the required timeline and subsequently sought his own costs in his response, which the court found procedurally improper and substantively without merit.

The court awarded costs to the successful party (the mother) in the amount of $22,500, inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, taking into account the respondent's unreasonable conduct, limited financial circumstances, and poor litigation decisions.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion decision concerning parenting arrangements for a 14-month-old child.

The maternal grandparents were granted temporary custody with limited supervised access for the parents.

The maternal grandparents sought costs of $30,932.17, while the parents requested no costs or costs fixed at $5,628.05.

The court found the maternal grandparents were successful parties entitled to costs but reduced the award significantly due to excessive time claims, the parents' limited financial circumstances, and concerns that the claimed amount could be used to intimidate the parents from pursuing legitimate positions.

The court fixed costs at $6,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable at $250 per month commencing August 1, 2018.

The applicant sought child support for a two-year-old child from the respondent.

The applicant initially requested the guideline table amount of $677 per month but was prepared to accept $500 per month.

The respondent claimed undue hardship under section 10 of the Child Support Guidelines and sought a reduction to $300 per month.

The respondent had multiple child support obligations, including a prior court order for $450 per month for another child, and was the sole financial supporter of two children in his household with his current spouse.

The court found that the respondent met the undue hardship test based on his multiple support obligations and lower household standard of living compared to the applicant.

However, the court exercised its discretion and ordered the respondent to pay $450 per month, finding that while the respondent faced genuine hardship, he had created his financial situation and had options available to meet his obligations.

A trial concerning parenting arrangements and child support for three children, including one with Autism Spectrum Disorder.

The mother sought sole custody, restrictions on the father's contact, and retroactive child support.

The father sought joint custody with parallel parenting and extended access.

The court found a history of domestic violence by the father, his alcohol abuse, and his failure to support the children financially.

The court granted sole custody to the mother, ordered supervised access exchanges, restricted the father's contact with the mother, and ordered retroactive child support from January 1, 2017.

Both parents brought motions to change the parenting terms of a 2010 custody order.

The father, who had been convicted of a sexual offence against the child in 2016, sought supervised access through a private facility and to maintain joint custody.

The mother sought sole custody and no access.

The child, now 12 years old, consistently expressed her unwillingness to see the father.

The court found a material change in circumstances and determined that sole custody to the mother and no access for the father were in the child's best interests.

The court also made orders restricting the father's social media postings about the mother and child, and permitting the mother to obtain government documentation and travel with the child without the father's consent.

A case conference in a child protection matter under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto sought to place a newborn child (born March 14, 2018) who had been apprehended on March 16, 2018 due to the mother's serious mental health concerns.

The father attended court and expressed willingness to plan for the child.

The court directed the society to assess the father's strengths, develop a service plan, provide expectations, and facilitate the father's input.

At the June 14, 2018 case conference, the society reported comprehensive compliance with the court's directions and demonstrated significant progress in working with the father, including overnight visits and parenting instruction.

The case was adjourned to July 18, 2018 for motions to place the child in the father's temporary care and to appoint the Public Guardian and Trustee for the mother.

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

The respondent (father) sought costs of $20,377, while the applicant (mother) requested no costs be ordered.

The court found the father was substantially successful on custody, incidents of custody, and child support issues, with divided success on access issues.

The court awarded costs of $15,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, payable at $250 per month starting July 1, 2018, with $3,000 designated as support enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

The court considered the father's reasonable behaviour, the mother's unreasonable conduct including breaches of court orders and failure to pay child support, and the mother's ability to access significant litigation funding despite claiming financial hardship.

Two child protection cases were heard on the same date following the proclamation of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 into force on April 30, 2018.

The first case involved an 11-year-old autistic child brought into care due to the mother's inability to manage significant behavioural problems.

The second case involved an infant under two months old brought into care due to the mother's mental health concerns.

Both cases were at the case conference stage with adjournments granted to allow the Children's Aid Societies to develop service plans consistent with the new statutory purposes and to report back to the court.

This was a motion to change a custody and access order following a material change in circumstances.

The mother sought a parallel parenting arrangement with final decision-making authority over medical and religious matters, while the father sought sole custody with supervised access for the mother.

The child, who has autism, had been transferred to the father's care in January 2016 after the mother engaged in a pattern of unfounded allegations against the father and breached court orders.

The court found that the mother had made significant gains in insight and conduct since the custody transfer, but that a joint or parallel parenting arrangement remained unworkable due to poor communication, lack of trust, and the mother's ongoing credibility issues.

The court granted sole custody to the father with gradually increasing unsupervised access to the mother, subject to specific conditions designed to protect the child from exposure to parental conflict and false allegations.

A costs endorsement following a successful motion by a stepmother for temporary access to a nine-year-old child.

The stepmother sought costs of $4,571 after obtaining one weekend per month access, which the parents had opposed entirely.

The court awarded costs of $2,400 total, with the father paying $1,600 and the mother paying $800, payable in monthly installments.

The decision addresses the principles governing costs awards for self-represented litigants and the application of Family Law Rules cost factors.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion seeking a finding that a 13-year-old child was in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act and requesting custody be granted to the father with access to the mother at the father's discretion.

The father and child supported the motion.

The unrepresented mother opposed it but did not file responding material.

The court dismissed the motion without prejudice, finding the society's evidence was replete with inadmissible hearsay that violated the trial-worthy evidentiary standard required on summary judgment motions in child protection cases.

The court found the evidentiary violations unjustly hindered the self-represented mother's legal interests and prevented the court from having confidence that the case could be justly resolved through summary judgment.

This is a costs endorsement following a two-day trial on a motion to change a prior custody and access order.

The respondent father sought to modify an August 2015 order to obtain unsupervised access with his three-year-old son and to terminate a restraining order against him.

The court granted the father's request for unsupervised access on a graduated schedule with eventual overnight visits, terminated the restraining order (while imposing contact restrictions), and dismissed his request for joint custody.

The applicant mother sought no costs or alternatively $1,500, while the father sought $18,000.

The court found the father was the more successful party overall, though success was divided.

The mother's conduct, particularly deliberate misrepresentations in her affidavit regarding the father's contact with the child and the parties' living arrangements, was found to constitute bad faith.

The court ordered the mother to pay costs of $12,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

In this status review application under the Child and Family Services Act, the Children's Aid Society sought to place a 12-year-old child in the custody of her maternal aunt, with restricted supervised access to her father.

The father opposed the application and sought custody of the child.

The court found that the child had achieved stability and thriving development in the aunt's care since July 2016.

The father's conduct, including attempts to undermine the child's placement, emotionally abusive communications, and failure to comply with court orders regarding negative messaging, had seriously damaged his relationship with the child.

The court granted custody to the aunt with supervised monthly access to the father, subject to the child's wishes, and dispensed with the father's consent for the child to travel outside Canada.

This is an evidentiary ruling on the admissibility of child hearsay statements in a status review application under the Child and Family Services Act.

The applicant society sought to place a 12-year-old child in the custody of her maternal aunt and sought only supervised monthly access for the respondent father.

The respondent sought custody or significant access.

The court held a voir dire to determine the admissibility of over 250 child statements made to two society workers.

The court applied the principled approach to hearsay admissibility, examining both procedural and substantive reliability.

The court admitted most statements made pursuant to the state of mind exception and most statements for the truth of their contents, with the exception of historic allegations of abuse that the child had recanted.

The father brought a motion to change a child support order dated September 29, 2015, which required him to pay $508 monthly for two children based on an imputed annual income of $35,000.

The father sought to reduce or eliminate support based on his actual income, claiming he was on social assistance.

The mother and the City of Toronto (assignee of child support arrears) opposed the motion.

The court found no change in circumstances warranting modification.

The father remained intentionally unemployed, having pursued education instead of employment, restricted his job search to welding positions despite admitting he could find other work, and maintained a lifestyle inconsistent with social assistance income alone.

The court dismissed the motion and upheld the imputed income, ordering arrears payments of $200 monthly.