Stanley B. Sherr

This Ontario Court of Justice decision addresses a contested relocation and parenting dispute involving an 8-year-old child.

The mother sought sole decision-making responsibility and permission to relocate with the child to Wisconsin, while the father opposed the move and sought joint or parallel decision-making responsibility.

The court carefully analyzed the best interests of the child under the Children’s Law Reform Act, including family violence considerations, the parties’ parenting abilities, and the impact of relocation.

The court found the mother to be the primary caregiver and granted her sole decision-making responsibility, permitting relocation with a detailed parenting time plan for the father.

The father’s income was imputed at $88,800 for child support purposes due to under-employment and lack of financial disclosure.

The mother’s spousal support claim was withdrawn if relocation was permitted.

This decision addresses the awarding of costs following temporary parenting and child support motions involving a 13-year-old child.

The court granted the mother temporary decision-making responsibility for major educational and health issues and ordered the father to pay temporary child support.

The mother made a severable offer to settle that was more favourable to the father than the court's order, triggering costs consequences under subrule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The court analyzed the reasonableness and proportionality of costs, the parties' conduct, and the father's ability to pay, ultimately ordering the father to pay $5,500 in costs with a payment plan.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following a motion for temporary spousal support.

The court considered whether the mother’s offer to settle attracted costs consequences under subrule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules and found it did not, due to the offer being a final settlement on a temporary motion and served with insufficient notice.

The court analyzed the concept of divided success on the motion, concluding the mother was the more successful party on the dominant issue of prospective temporary spousal support.

The court declined to defer the costs decision to the trial judge, emphasizing that temporary support orders are routinely subject to adjustment and are not "without prejudice." Ultimately, the court ordered the father to pay costs of $1,200 to the mother.

This decision addresses the imputation of income for child support purposes where the father ceased working due to claimed mental health issues but failed to provide sufficient medical evidence or comply with court orders.

The court found the father deliberately under-employed without a valid medical excuse, imputed an annual income of $70,000 based on his prior earnings, and ordered child support accordingly.

The father’s failure to participate fully in the trial and produce medical witnesses led to adverse inferences and a costs award in favor of the mother.

This decision addresses the retroactive child support obligations of a father for two children following separation.

The court applies the framework from Colucci v. Colucci to determine the presumptive start date for child support, the appropriateness of departing from that date, and the quantification of arrears.

The father’s failure to disclose income accurately, refusal to pay support directly to the mother, and controlling behavior led to a retroactive support order starting January 1, 2023, with arrears fixed at $15,704.

The court also discusses the limited credit the father may receive for direct payments made to the child and orders payment terms to alleviate hardship.

The Ontario Court of Justice awarded costs to the mother after the father withdrew his motion to change child support terms contained in a separation agreement.

The court applied Family Law Rules subrule 12(3), which presumes the withdrawing party pays costs, and found no basis to rebut this presumption.

The father’s withdrawal at the first case conference caused the mother to incur costs preparing for the motion and case conference.

The court rejected the mother’s allegation of bad faith, finding the father’s withdrawal was a legal strategy.

The costs award was fixed at $4,000, reduced from the claimed $8,690, considering the father's limited financial circumstances.

The court allowed payment of arrears in monthly installments and ordered the costs to be enforceable as support by the Director of the Family Responsibility Office.

This is a costs endorsement following a trial where the mother (applicant) was the successful party, as the father's (respondent's) motion to significantly reduce his child and spousal support obligations was dismissed.

The mother sought $13,000 in costs.

The court found that the mother's offer to settle did not meet the technical requirements of subrule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules for enhanced costs because it expired before the hearing started.

However, considering the father's unreasonable conduct, including deliberate under-employment and failure to make an offer to settle, and the mother's reasonable positions, the court awarded the mother $9,000 in costs.

The costs were ordered to be paid in monthly installments and enforced as an incident of support by the Family Responsibility Office, given the case was entirely about support.

The court released its costs endorsement following a trial on child support obligations.

The applicant mother, who was the successful party at trial, sought costs of $8,092.

The respondent father did not make submissions.

The court reviewed general costs principles and the application of Rule 18(14) regarding offers to settle, finding the mother's offer did not meet the technical requirements for enhanced costs.

Considering factors under Rule 24(12), including the parties' conduct and the father's unreasonable positions on support, the court awarded the mother $6,000 in costs, payable in installments.

The applicant and respondent sought temporary decision-making responsibility orders for their child, primarily concerning vaccination.

The applicant also sought temporary child support.

The court disregarded the joint decision-making terms of their separation agreement, finding them no longer in the child's best interests due to fundamental disagreements on health care.

The court granted the applicant sole decision-making responsibility for health and educational issues, including vaccinations, and ordered the respondent to pay child support of $600 per month, consistent with the original agreement and guidelines.

The court declined to prohibit the father from discussing vaccines with the child but referred the matter to the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The Director of the Family Responsibility Office sought to enforce significant child support arrears against the payor.

The payor claimed inability to pay a lump sum and proposed a reduced payment plan.

The court found the payor lacked credibility regarding his income and financial disclosure, and had deliberately delayed proceedings and prioritized his own interests.

The court ordered immediate and annual lump sum payments towards arrears, ongoing child support, and imposed committal terms for non-compliance, holding an immediate warrant in abeyance to allow for payment.

The respondent mother brought a motion for temporary spousal support from the applicant father after a 15-year cohabitation.

The mother claimed disability since 2016 and sought compensatory and non-compensatory support.

The father argued the mother was deliberately unemployed and sought to impute income to her, requesting the issue be sent to trial.

The court found the mother had established a prima facie entitlement to temporary spousal support on both compensatory and non-compensatory grounds, rejecting the father's request to impute income or defer the decision to trial.

The court ordered the father to pay $2,000 per month in temporary spousal support, starting April 1, 2024, aiming to equalize net disposable incomes given the shared parenting arrangement.

This endorsement follows a default hearing where the payor, Bhojnarine Ramgopaul, was ordered to pay child support arrears and faced committal.

The court notes that Ramgopaul made the required immediate lump sum payments and ongoing support payments for both the Sahid and Bhansingh cases.

Consequently, the warrants of committal issued on November 8, 2024, are rescinded, and the default hearings are declared complete.

This was a status review application brought by the Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto concerning two children, E (8) and N (6), who had been in society care since 2021 due to their mother's severe mental health issues.

The Society sought a final custody order granting sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence to S.T., the father's partner, with whom the children had been living since the father's departure following domestic violence charges.

The mother sought custody for herself, while the father initially sought custody but later supported S.T.'s custody.

The court granted S.T. sole custody under section 102 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, finding it to be in the children's best interests due to the mother's profound and unaddressed mental health challenges and the father's deceitful conduct, family violence, and lack of insight.

The court ordered supervised access for the mother and structured, reduced day access for the father, emphasizing the children's need for stability and protection from conflict.

The applicant father sought costs after a successful motion for temporary parenting time.

The respondent mother also sought costs.

The court found that neither party's offers to settle met the technical requirements for costs consequences under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

While there was divided success on the underlying motion, the father was deemed the more successful party overall.

The court considered the parties' conduct, particularly the mother's unreasonable allegations and interference with parenting time, and awarded the father $6,000 in costs, payable monthly, dismissing the mother's costs claim.

The father brought a motion to change existing child and spousal support orders, seeking a reduction based on his alleged income changes due to unemployment.

The mother opposed the motion, claiming the father was intentionally under-employed or unemployed, and sought an increase in child support and an order requiring the father to seek leave for future court proceedings.

The court found the father lacked credibility and had a pattern of intentionally reducing his income to avoid support obligations.

The court imputed income to the father at the level of the existing order and dismissed both the father's motion to change and the mother's request for increased child support.

The mother's request for a leave order was also dismissed, as the court found the father had not abused the court process.

The case concerned the mother's claim for retroactive child support for two children.

The court applied the Colucci framework for original applications for retroactive support, finding the presumptive start date was December 1, 2021.

The court departed from this date, setting support to begin October 1, 2021, due to the father's blameworthy conduct (failure to disclose income, underpayment) and the mother's understandable delay.

The father was ordered to pay $36,066 in arrears and ongoing child support of $1,194 per month.

The Director of the Family Responsibility Office brought two default hearings against the payor for child support arrears in two separate cases (Sahid and Bhansingh).

The cases were heard together.

The payor disputed his ability to pay and sought no committal terms.

The court found the payor lacked credibility regarding his income and financial disclosure, noting his cash business and intertwined finances with his parents.

The court applied the statutory presumptions and powers under the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996, and considered factors for ordering imprisonment.

Despite the payor's claims, the court found he had the ability to earn significantly more and to make substantial payments.

The court ordered immediate lump sum payments towards arrears with committal terms, followed by a structured payment plan for the remaining arrears and ongoing support, also with committal terms.

The warrants of committal were held in abeyance to allow the payor to make payments.

The mother brought a motion to change child support and parenting time, seeking to impute a higher income to the father and claim retroactive support and section 7 expenses.

The father brought a cross-motion to change parenting time and sought to pay child support based on a lower income.

The court found a material change in circumstances for both parenting time and child support.

The father's income was imputed significantly higher than he claimed, and retroactive support was ordered from January 1, 2022, due to his blameworthy conduct in failing to disclose income.

A structured, gradually increasing parenting time schedule was ordered for the father, removing the mother's previous discretion.

This is a costs endorsement following motions where the court determined primary residence and decision-making responsibility for a child, and ordered the child's return to Ontario from Prince Edward Island.

The applicant mother sought costs against the respondent maternal grandmother and the respondent father.

The court found the mother was largely successful against the maternal grandmother and partially successful against the father.

While the maternal grandmother's conduct was unreasonable, it did not meet the high threshold for a finding of bad faith.

The court awarded fixed costs to the mother against both respondents, taking into account their financial circumstances and allowing for payment over time.

This trial concerned a mother's application for retroactive and ongoing child support for the parties' 18-year-old son, and for the father's proportionate share of post-secondary expenses.

The father had stopped paying child support and failed to comply with disclosure orders.

The court applied the Colucci framework for retroactive support, finding the presumptive start date to be March 1, 2019 (date of effective notice), and declined to depart from this date due to the father's blameworthy conduct and the hardship caused to the mother and child.

The court quantified the arrears and ordered ongoing support and contributions to post-secondary expenses.