Stephania Sikora

Following a nine-day child protection trial in which the Society's application was dismissed and the child was returned to the mother's care, the mother sought costs of $5,000 against the Society on a partial indemnity basis.

The court applied the framework from Children's Aid Society of Hamilton v. K.L. and T.M. and found that the Society's conduct was patently unfair and indefensible, including: failure to disclose 400 pages of contact logs until three days before the final decision was rendered; failure to present relevant child welfare information to the court during trial; failure to increase access despite court direction and the absence of protection concerns; and failure to facilitate contact between the child and her maternal grandfather for over one and a half years.

Costs were awarded, but reduced to a nominal $500 on the basis that both Legal Aid Ontario (representing the mother) and the Society are publicly funded, and that limited public funds should remain directed toward the child's continued care rather than past legal fees.

The respondent brought a motion to vary a previous order concerning the amalgamation and ownership of corporations, specifically seeking to remove the applicant's interest in the amalgamated entity.

The applicant opposed this motion and brought a cross-motion for alternative relief.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion, finding that it was functus officio and that the respondent had not demonstrated a mistake in the original order under Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules.

The court only corrected a typographical error in the original order, requiring the parties to negotiate a cooperative agreement for the amalgamated corporation.

The applicant mother sought a nesting arrangement with primary care for their child and pro-rata sharing of matrimonial home costs.

The respondent father agreed to nesting but sought a shared parenting regime.

The court ordered a temporary, without prejudice, shared parenting nesting arrangement with a four-day rotation, finding both parents capable and involved, and that the high conflict was detrimental to the child.

The court declined to order pro-rata cost sharing for the matrimonial home, stating both parties benefit equally from the arrangement.

The applicant sought a temporary parenting time order, specifically that the respondent's parenting time be only in accordance with the children's wishes.

The court had previously ordered specific parenting times, which the children refused.

The children's counsel argued the court erred by prioritizing "maximum contact" over the children's well-being and showed predisposition.

The court rejected these arguments, affirming the statutory presumption of continuing parental contact, but expressed concern about the children's anxiety and the mother's potential influence.

Reluctantly, the court ordered no further parenting time for the moment, emphasizing it was temporary and without prejudice, and encouraged exploration of reunification therapy.

The father brought a motion for a temporary parenting time order after the children, aged 11 and 13, refused to visit him due to his unpredictable outbursts and anger management issues.

The court considered the children's wishes and fears, finding them reasonable.

To ensure the children's emotional and psychological safety, the court suspended the previous parenting regime and ordered a gradual, monitored reintroduction through brief visits in public places, along with mandatory anger management counselling for the father and continued therapy for the children.

The applicant sought an order for partition and sale of a jointly owned 61-acre rural property.

The respondent opposed the motion, raising five arguments including allegations of perjury, disputes over property valuation, child support arrears, equalization of net family property, and claims of hardship.

The court dismissed all of the respondent's arguments, finding them unpersuasive and unsupported by evidence.

The court granted the order for partition and sale, concluding that the hardship to the applicant if the property were not sold far outweighed any potential hardship to the respondent.

The applicant sought interim custody and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, while the respondent sought joint custody and to retain the home.

The court granted the applicant interim sole custody, finding joint custody unworkable due to significant animus between the parties.

The respondent was granted unsupervised parenting time conditional on medication adherence.

The applicant was also granted interim exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, prioritizing the child's best interests over the respondent's business needs.

Costs were divided due to mixed success.

In a family law matter involving three children from a common law relationship, the court determined custody and access arrangements following separation.

The applicant father sought to make permanent the existing temporary orders providing him with primary residence of the two youngest children and week-about shared residency for the oldest child.

The respondent mother sought week-about shared residency for all three children or, alternatively, primary residence of the oldest child with access to the two youngest.

The court found both parents capable and loving, but determined that a week-about shared residency arrangement for all three children best served the children's interests, allowing maximum contact with both parents and siblings.

The court also adjusted child support obligations based on the new shared parenting arrangement and the parties' current incomes.

In this motion for temporary child support, the respondent mother sought an order for child support for the two children of the marriage, which the applicant father resisted.

The parties shared parenting time, necessitating the application of section 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

Due to conflicting financial information and a lack of child expense budgets, the court imputed incomes for both parents and calculated a set-off amount.

The court then adjusted this set-off to account for the father's higher standard of living and debt burden, ultimately ordering the father to pay $300 per month in temporary child support.

The court declined to award costs due to unnecessarily lengthy affidavits containing irrelevant information.

Richard Wight moved to terminate a child support order and expunge arrears.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services (MCSS), as assignee of the support order, opposed this and brought a motion for extensive financial disclosure from Wight, including tax returns from 1978.

The court applied the proportionality principle, finding MCSS's disclosure requests disproportionate given the age of the order and the limited amount of outstanding arrears.

Wight was ordered to provide consents for MCSS to obtain information directly from CRA and FRO, and to provide a copy of a related Owen Sound order, but the broader disclosure requests were dismissed.