Stanley B. Sherr

The applicant father brought an ex parte application under section 7 of the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act to obtain information (mother's and child's addresses, mother's employer) from the Minister of Justice Canada to enforce an existing parenting order.

The court found that the father had taken reasonable steps to locate the mother and child and that the application met the criteria under section 9 of the Act, including providing police and vulnerable sector checks and affirming the sole purpose was enforcement.

The court was satisfied the order would not jeopardize the safety or security of the mother or child, despite historical concerns that had been resolved by a subsequent consent order.

The court authorized a court official to make the application to the Minister, ordering that notice be sent to the mother and child as per section 12.1 of the Act, and deferred a decision on further confidentiality restrictions until the information is received.

The trial primarily addressed child and spousal support obligations for the parties' two-year-old son.

The court determined the parties' incomes, including imputation for both the father's corporate income and the mother's personal income, finding the father deliberately under-employed and the mother earning unreported cash.

The court adjusted child support retroactively and prospectively based on imputed incomes and a new shared parenting arrangement.

Spousal support was ordered at a reduced amount from the temporary order, with an indefinite (reviewable) duration, and a significant overpayment by the father was ordered to be repaid by the mother through set-off against ongoing support.

This is a costs endorsement following a two-day trial on the respondent father's motion to change a child support order.

The applicant mother sought $12,000 in costs, while the father requested no costs.

The court found the mother to be the overall more successful party, noting the father's unreasonable conduct in providing late and incomplete financial disclosure and unreliable evidence.

Despite some divided success on child support termination dates, the father's main request for retroactive reduction was dismissed, and the mother was significantly more successful on the issue of claimed support credits.

The court awarded the mother $7,500 in costs, payable in installments, and ordered them to be enforceable as an incident of support by the Family Responsibility Office.

This decision addresses a costs endorsement following a successful motion by the applicant to temporarily relocate with the parties' children.

The applicant sought $9,136 in costs, while the respondent argued for no costs.

The court applied the Family Law Rules regarding costs, including the principles of indemnification, settlement encouragement, and discouraging inappropriate behaviour.

While the applicant's offer to settle engaged the presumptive costs consequences of Rule 18(14), the court partially rebutted this presumption.

This was due to the applicant's failure to obtain court authorization for relocation before notifying the respondent of her intent to move, which necessitated the respondent bringing an urgent motion.

The court ultimately awarded the applicant $5,000 in costs, a reduction from the amount sought, balancing the applicant's success with her conduct that contributed to litigation costs.

The respondent sought to set aside the registration of a 2001 California child support order in Ontario, arguing lack of notice, no reasonable opportunity to be heard, and public policy concerns including income misattribution, disputed paternity, and delayed enforcement.

The applicant opposed, asserting proper notice and the respondent's deliberate avoidance of obligations.

The court found the respondent had proper notice and opportunity to be heard, and his credibility was significantly undermined by inconsistencies and bad faith conduct.

The court rejected the public policy arguments, emphasizing that this defense should not interfere with foreign courts' findings of fact when proper process was followed.

The motion to set aside was dismissed, and the registration of the California order was confirmed.

The respondent father sought an adjournment of his child support trial, arguing inability to work due to severe anxiety and depression, and his psychiatrist's unavailability for cross-examination.

The applicant mother opposed.

The court, balancing the need for finality in family proceedings with the father's diligent efforts and the psychiatrist's health issues, granted one final adjournment.

The order set strict conditions for the father to obtain and produce medical evidence, including potentially a new psychiatrist, and made the next trial date peremptory.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto (Toronto society) brought a motion to transfer a child protection case concerning the 12-year-old subject child, H, to the Superior Court of Justice (Family Court) in Barrie.

The Simcoe Muskoka Child and Family Connexions (Simcoe society) consented, while the child's father and stepmother opposed the transfer.

The court considered whether there was a preponderance of convenience favoring the transfer, assessing factors related to the child's connections, service providers, society involvement, and the parents' location and conduct.

The court found that H's primary connections and service history were in Barrie, and the Simcoe society had more extensive historical involvement with the family.

The court also noted the parents' attempt to avoid the Simcoe society by moving the child to Toronto, which resulted in instability for the child.

The motion to transfer the case to Barrie was granted, as it was deemed to be in the child's best interests.

This endorsement addresses costs and a request for a leave order following motions to change a parenting order.

The applicant father's motion was stayed due to unpaid costs from previous litigation and was subsequently withdrawn.

The respondent mother successfully obtained changes to the parenting order and sought costs for the motions, as well as an order requiring the father to obtain court leave for any future motions.

The court awarded the mother $7,000 in costs, finding the father's conduct unreasonable and noting his history of non-payment.

Furthermore, the court granted the leave order to prevent further abuse of process and protracted litigation, given the father's past behaviour and failure to comply with previous cost orders.

This is a costs endorsement following a focused trial where the applicant (mother) was awarded retroactive child support arrears of $18,086.

The mother sought full recovery costs of $6,864.75.

The court found the respondent (father) acted in bad faith by failing to provide financial disclosure and comply with previous orders.

Additionally, the mother's offer to settle, which was more favourable than the trial result, entitled her to full recovery costs from the date of the offer.

The court ordered the father to pay the mother's full recovery costs, finding the amount reasonable and proportionate, and that the father could afford to pay.

This endorsement addresses the applicant mother's delayed costs submissions for a prior motion where she was largely successful.

The court found the mother was entitled to costs for the previous motion, particularly for a private investigator's disbursement incurred due to the respondent father's misrepresentation of his employment status.

Despite the mother's significant delay (over six months) in filing costs submissions and failing to raise the issue at subsequent court appearances, the court exercised its discretion to award costs for disbursements to ensure justice, but disallowed legal fees due to the delay.

The father was ordered to pay $5,650 for disbursements and HST.

The parties brought motions to change child support for their 20-year-old daughter.

The father sought to terminate support as of June 30, 2022, when the daughter completed high school and took a 14-month gap year.

The mother opposed this and sought a retroactive increase in child support from January 1, 2013.

The court found the daughter was not entitled to support during her gap year (July 1, 2022, to August 31, 2023) but revived support from September 1, 2023, when she returned to school.

The court found a material change in the father's income and, due to his blameworthy conduct (failure to disclose and comply with orders), ordered retroactive child support from January 1, 2018, imputing his income.

The father was ordered to pay additional arrears and increased ongoing child support.

The applicant mother sought to retroactively change a child support order and obtain contributions for special and extraordinary expenses (section 7 expenses) for the parties' two children.

The respondent father opposed the motion and claimed undue hardship due to supporting 11 of his 13 children from various relationships.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the father's significantly increased income and the fact that he was no longer supporting his two eldest children.

While the presumptive date for retroactive support was the date of formal notice (October 13, 2023), the court deviated to January 1, 2022, citing the father's blameworthy conduct in failing to provide financial disclosure and advise of income increases.

The father's undue hardship claim under section 10 of the Child Support Guidelines was partially successful for 2022 and 2024, resulting in reduced table amounts for those years, but not for 2023, as his household's standard of living was not lower than the mother's in that year.

The court ordered the father to pay retroactive child support arrears and contribute to ongoing section 7 childcare expenses.

The father brought a motion to change an existing child support order, seeking to terminate his obligation and obtain support from the mother.

The mother responded, seeking a retroactive increase in child support and dismissal of the father's claim for retroactive special expenses (section 7 expenses).

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the father's increased income and his blameworthy conduct in failing to disclose it.

Applying the Colucci framework, the court ordered a retroactive increase in child support payable by the father from January 1, 2020, fixing arrears at $21,668 as of December 31, 2023.

The father's claim for retroactive section 7 expenses was dismissed due to his blameworthy conduct, unilateral actions, and the unreasonableness of the expenses given the mother's financial circumstances.

The father's ongoing child support obligation was terminated, and the mother was ordered to pay temporary child support to the father, with the father's arrears to be set off against these payments.

The mother was also found entitled to her costs.

The court issued a costs endorsement following a three-day trial where the paternal grandmother's claim for contact with the child and the mother's claim for a restraining order against the paternal grandmother were both dismissed.

Both parties sought costs against each other, with the paternal grandmother seeking $9,627 and the mother seeking over $70,000.

The court applied the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, considering offers to settle and the parties' financial circumstances.

The mother was deemed the successful party on the dominant issue of contact, while the paternal grandmother was successful on the secondary issue of the restraining order.

The court ordered the paternal grandmother to pay the mother $12,000 in costs, payable in monthly installments, taking into account the paternal grandmother's modest financial circumstances and her reasonable offer to settle.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a status review application seeking extended society care for two children (aged 7 and 5) due to a prolonged history of family violence perpetrated by the father against the mother, the mother's inability to protect the children from this exposure, and the parents' consistent dishonesty and lack of insight regarding the impact of the violence.

The parents sought custody or supervision.

The court found a continuing necessity for a protection order, concluding that the risks of physical and emotional harm to the children remained unacceptably high.

The court granted the society's request for extended society care, emphasizing the children's need for permanency and stability.

Access for the mother and father was ordered to be strictly supervised and limited, with the children designated as access holders.

The maternal grandfather was granted more generous access as an access holder.

This decision is a costs endorsement following a prior ruling on temporary parenting, support, and communication orders.

The respondent (mother) was the successful party in the underlying motions and sought $6,500 in costs.

The applicant (father) did not submit costs arguments.

The court applied the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, considering the father's unreasonable conduct, including failure to meet filing timelines, lack of proper financial disclosure, non-compliance with temporary orders, and advancing meritless positions.

Despite the father's limited imputed income, the court ordered him to pay the requested $6,500 in costs, allowing for monthly installments.

The paternal grandmother (applicant) sought a contact order with her 6-year-old grand-daughter.

The mother (respondent N.J.) opposed this and sought a restraining order against the paternal grandmother.

The father (respondent T.S.) was in default.

The court applied the two-part test for grandparent contact, determining that a positive relationship did not exist at the time contact was terminated, and the mother's decision to deny contact was not arbitrary.

This was based on significant safety concerns in the paternal grandmother's home and community, her problematic parenting history, and a clear power imbalance and lack of trust between the parties.

The court dismissed both the paternal grandmother's claim for contact and the mother's claim for a restraining order, finding no sufficient grounds for the latter.

In this family law matter, the court addressed parenting and child support issues after the respondent father's Answer/Claim was struck due to his repeated non-attendance.

The applicant mother sought retroactive child support from December 2018, ongoing child support, and contributions to section 7 expenses.

Applying the Colucci framework for retroactive support, the court found the mother had understandable reasons for her delay in seeking support and that the father had engaged in blameworthy conduct by underpaying support and failing to disclose income.

The court ordered retroactive child support and section 7 expenses, quantified current support obligations, and mandated the father to maintain health coverage for the children.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking temporary parenting, communication, contact, and child support orders, along with further financial disclosure from the applicant father.

The father opposed the relief and orally sought joint decision-making and unsupervised parenting time.

The court granted the mother's requests, ordering sole decision-making responsibility to the mother, supervised parenting time for the father, and imputing income to the father for child support purposes due to his intentional under-employment and non-compliance with disclosure orders.

The court cited the father's history of family violence, criminal charges, threats of self-harm, illegal immigration status, and lack of commitment to parenting time and financial obligations as reasons for its decision, emphasizing the child's best interests and safety.

The father's oral claims were dismissed.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a summary judgment motion in a child protection application concerning two children, MA (4) and MH (3), who had a history of being in and out of society care due to parental instability, substance abuse, and criminal involvement.

The mother, C. B.-H., was the only participating respondent, seeking placement of the children in her care or increased access.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding that the mother's chaotic lifestyle, incarceration, and failure to address protection concerns rendered her unable to provide a safe and stable home.

The court granted the society's request for extended society care for both children, with discretionary access for the mother (minimum three times annually) and paternal aunt (minimum two times annually if requested), and no access for the father and paternal uncle.

Sibling access was ordered a minimum of twice monthly.