Stephanie Smith

The applicant mother brought a motion to amend a 2018 child support order, seeking an adjustment of child support based on the respondent father's actual and imputed income, as well as a repayment schedule for arrears.

The father failed to provide updated financial disclosure for 2021.

The court imputed the father's income for 2021 and 2022 based on his 2020 income, ordered him to pay ongoing child support and arrears at a rate of $100 per month, and awarded costs of $4,500 to the mother.

Following the dismissal of the respondent father's motion regarding jurisdiction and the return of the children to the UAE, the applicant mother sought full indemnity costs.

The court awarded the mother $45,000 in costs on an elevated scale, finding that the father engaged in bad faith, failed to comply with court orders, withheld crucial documents regarding foreign custody proceedings, and ignored reasonable offers to settle.

The Father brought a motion seeking the return of one child (R.M.) to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and a declaration that the Ontario Superior Court lacked jurisdiction over parenting issues.

The court dismissed the Father's motion, finding that it had jurisdiction under both s. 22(1)(b) and s. 23 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court found that all six criteria under s. 22(1)(b) were met, including that there were no pending extra-provincial proceedings due to the Father's bad faith in concealing UAE custody proceedings from the Mother.

Furthermore, the court found that R.M. would suffer serious physical and psychological harm if returned to the UAE, given the Mother and children's Convention refugee status, the Father's history of abuse and lack of credibility, and R.M.'s strong, consistent views against returning.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change the child's school from Steve MacLean Public School to Mutchmor Public School, citing the father's frequent moves and the child's long commute.

The respondent father opposed, arguing for the child to remain at the current school or alternatively attend a school in Kanata.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the father's change of residence and, applying the best interests of the child test, granted the mother's request.

The decision emphasized the importance of the child attending school in their residential neighbourhood to foster friendships and stability, especially given the mother's long-term residential stability.

In a family law dispute involving jurisdiction and custody issues between Ontario and the UAE, a voir dire was held to determine the admissibility of the parties' proposed expert reports on Sharia Law and Islamic Legal Systems.

The court qualified the applicant mother's expert, finding he possessed the necessary special knowledge and experience.

The court disqualified the respondent father's expert and ruled his report inadmissible, finding that the expert was likely not the true author of the report, failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 20.2 of the Family Law Rules, and lacked the necessary specialized experience to render an opinion.

The parties were married under Sharia Law in 2007 but never registered the marriage in Ontario.

After separation, the applicant sought a declaration of a valid marriage, equalization, or alternatively, damages for unjust enrichment, as well as child and spousal support.

The court found the marriage invalid under Ontario law because the parties did not intend to comply with the Marriage Act.

However, the court found the respondent was unjustly enriched by the applicant's assumption of domestic and childcare duties, awarding her a monetary remedy of $26,785.

The court also imputed income to the respondent for travel benefits received and ordered him to pay retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary spousal support under the Family Law Act following an eight-year marriage.

The applicant was primarily a stay-at-home mother, while the respondent worked full-time and earned additional compensation through travel agencies.

The court imputed an additional $10,000 to the respondent's income for his travel agency work and ordered him to pay $1,100 per month in interim spousal support based on the parties' respective incomes and needs.

The applicant children's aid society sought an order for Crown wardship without access for a young child with significant special needs, including reactive attachment disorder, PTSD, and ADHD.

The child had been apprehended due to chronic neglect, the mother's prescription drug abuse, and the father's anger management issues and history of sexual offences.

The parents sought the return of the child to their care under supervision or an extension of society wardship.

The court found that the parents lacked insight into the child's complex needs and had failed to follow through with recommended therapeutic and anger management programming.

Concluding that the parents' plan was not viable and that the child required a stable, structured environment, the court ordered Crown wardship.

The court also denied access to the parents, finding they had not met the onus of proving that access would be meaningful and beneficial or that it would not impair the child's future opportunities for adoption.