Stephen E. J. Paull

The Children's Aid Society brought a status review application regarding two First Nations children who had been placed with their paternal grandparents following unexplained injuries while in their mother's care.

The mother sought the return of the children or unsupervised access, while the Society, father, and grandparents supported a final custody order to the grandparents with supervised access for the parents.

The court found the children remained in need of protection due to the mother's unresolved mental health issues, unsafe relationships, and inability to manage the children's significant behavioural challenges.

The court granted sole custody to the paternal grandparents under s. 102(1) of the CYFSA, with the parents' access to remain supervised at the grandparents' discretion.

Following a family trial on retroactive and ongoing child support, the court determined costs only.

The applicant was entirely successful on the support issues, while the respondent failed to make any offer to settle, delayed disclosure, breached disclosure orders, and advanced a disability position inconsistent with his own evidence and continued work activity.

Applying the Family Law Rules costs framework, the court held that this conduct amounted to bad faith on the financial issues, engaging full recovery in principle.

The claimed costs were reduced to exclude time spent on parenting issues that had resolved on consent, and costs of $12,500 inclusive were ordered payable forthwith.

Following a four-day family law trial regarding parenting and child support, both parties sought costs.

The respondent was the largely successful party at trial, having been granted primary residence and final decision-making authority on key issues.

However, the respondent failed to make any offers to settle, and both parties engaged in unreasonable conduct throughout the litigation.

Taking into account the divided success, the parties' conduct, and the applicant's limited financial means, the court awarded the respondent fixed costs of $3,000, payable in monthly installments.

The applicant sought retroactive and ongoing child support.

The respondent claimed he was totally disabled and unable to pay support.

The court found the respondent had engaged in blameworthy conduct by failing to pay agreed-upon support while earning significant income and working for cash.

Relying on the respondent's own medical expert, the court concluded he was not totally disabled but could perform less physically demanding work.

The court ordered retroactive child support from January 1, 2021, and imputed an annual income of $38,000 to the respondent for ongoing support.

The parties, parents of two young children, both sought sole decision-making and primary residence.

The relationship was marked by high conflict, instability, and excessive marijuana use.

The court found that both parties contributed to the family violence, but accepted the mother's evidence that the father sexually assaulted her on one occasion.

The court ordered joint decision-making with the mother having final authority over health and education, and primary residence with the mother.

The father's request for a police enforcement clause was dismissed.

Income was imputed to both parties at $21,000 per year for child support purposes.

Costs decision following the dismissal of a family law application and urgent motion regarding a child.

The self-represented applicant had commenced proceedings in Woodstock despite the child's habitual residence being in Sarnia, where a Superior Court proceeding was already scheduled.

The respondent's offer to settle — proposing withdrawal of the motion on a without-costs basis — met the technical requirements of the Family Law Rules.

The court found the applicant's conduct unreasonable, including failing to file a reply affidavit, proceeding despite jurisdictional deficiencies, and failing to attend court.

Despite the applicant's limited financial means, the court awarded $4,500 in costs payable in monthly instalments, rather than the full indemnity of $7,242.17 sought.

The paternal grandmother applied for contact with her three grandchildren.

The mother brought a motion to change an existing contact order regarding the oldest child.

The court found a material change in circumstances regarding the oldest child due to the parents reuniting, the birth of a new sibling, and the unworkability of the existing order.

Applying the test for grandparent contact, the court granted the grandmother contact with the two older children for one weekend per month, finding it in their best interests despite the high conflict between the parties.

The claim for contact with the youngest child was dismissed due to the lack of a pre-existing relationship, the child's medical needs, and the high level of conflict.

This decision addresses multiple motions concerning the temporary care and custody of children under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The court considered the history of protection concerns involving parental alcohol misuse, domestic conflict, and the impact on the children.

The court applied the statutory test for temporary care and custody orders, emphasizing the least disruptive placement consistent with adequate protection.

The decision highlights the importance of supervised access, the risks of parental conflict exposure, and the detrimental effects of recording interactions involving children.

The court ordered D.D. placed temporarily with her father under supervision with structured access to her mother, and L.L. placed with maternal grandparents with structured access to her mother, reflecting differing risk assessments for each child.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following a two-day family law trial concerning parenting time.

The respondent sought to extend midweek overnight parenting time but was unsuccessful.

The court considered the parties' conduct, offers to settle, and the proportionality of costs.

The applicant was awarded partial indemnity costs of $4,500, reflecting her success on the primary issue and the reasonableness of the parties' positions.

The decision highlights the application of Family Law Rules subrules 24(12), 24(13), and 24(14) in assessing costs, emphasizing the importance of offers to settle and the conduct of parties in family litigation.

The Ontario Court of Justice considered a motion without notice brought by the respondent seeking urgent orders regarding the primary residence and parenting time of the parties' child following the applicant's unilateral relocation.

The court found that the respondent did not establish the necessary urgency or grounds to proceed without notice for changing the child's primary residence or relocation.

However, due to serious allegations concerning the applicant's partner's criminal charges, the court granted a limited without-prejudice order restricting the child's contact with the named individuals pending further investigation.

The court emphasized the need for involvement of the Children's Aid Society (CAS) and proper jurisdictional considerations for the ongoing matter.

This decision addresses the issue of costs between parents in a child protection proceeding under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The father, J.N., sought partial indemnity costs from the mother, J.M., arguing that he was successful and that J.M. acted unreasonably and prolonged the matter.

The court reviewed the high threshold required for awarding costs between parents in protection cases, emphasizing that costs should only be awarded for extreme unreasonable conduct or bad faith.

The court found that although J.M. initially resisted conceding primary residence, she acted reasonably in later efforts to resolve the matter, and no findings of fact or breach of court orders were made against her.

The protection application was withdrawn on consent, and the court declined to order costs, highlighting the importance of good faith and proportionality in such proceedings.

This decision addresses a motion to change parenting time and decision-making arrangements for the child Lailah, born in 2014, between parents Frankie May Dey and Ryan David Cronk.

The court found a material change in circumstances since the original 2014 order, including Mr. Cronk's stabilization and ongoing parental conflict.

The parties resolved most issues by consent, but the court considered whether to add Thursday overnight parenting time during school days.

The court declined to add Thursday overnights due to the child's best interests, the parents' poor communication, and the child's clear preference to maintain primary residence with the mother and limit school week transitions.

The court imposed additional orders to reduce conflict exposure and facilitate private communication between the child and each parent.

This decision addresses a motion under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 concerning the temporary care and custody of a child, M.S., following apprehension by the Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County.

The court applied the statutory test under section 94 of the Act, focusing on whether there were reasonable grounds to believe the child was at risk of harm and whether supervision orders could adequately protect the child.

The evidence demonstrated the mother’s long-standing alcohol abuse, verbal abuse, and uncooperative behavior, which placed the child at risk.

The court ordered the child remain in the father’s temporary care with supervised access to the mother, emphasizing the least disruptive placement consistent with the child’s safety and well-being.

The Ontario Court of Justice dismissed a 14B motion brought by Laura Elizabeth Clark seeking urgent orders for primary residence of the child with police enforcement in Fergus, Ontario.

The motion was short served and not on consent, and the court emphasized the importance of jurisdictional propriety, noting an existing temporary order from Thunder Bay.

The court held that only the original court can transfer jurisdiction under section 66 of the Children's Law Reform Act and that the issue of jurisdiction should be addressed in Thunder Bay where the initial application was made.

The decision highlights procedural requirements for urgent motions and the necessity to respect existing court orders and jurisdictional boundaries in family law disputes.

This trial addressed parenting time arrangements and child support obligations for the parties' child, Kyler, including a retroactive child support claim.

The applicant sought primary care and full guideline child support with retroactivity to May 2021, while the respondent sought a shared parenting schedule and set-off child support.

The court found that despite a mediation memorandum, a shared parenting arrangement was not consistently in place, and the child primarily resided with the applicant.

The court dismissed the respondent's request for shared parenting, granting the applicant primary care with liberal and generous parenting time for the respondent.

Retroactive child support was awarded to the applicant, but only from September 1, 2023, as effective notice for an earlier period was not established.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following a family law trial.

The respondent sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing success on parenting issues and the applicant's unreasonable behaviour, including her failure to make settlement offers and unilateral relocation.

The applicant sought no costs, citing divided success and precarious financial circumstances.

The court found divided success but determined the respondent was more successful overall, particularly on the primary parenting issues.

Considering the applicant's unreasonable conduct and financial situation, the court awarded partial costs of $10,000 to the respondent, payable over time.

The respondent's request to prevent further litigation until costs were paid was denied, as was the request for costs to be enforceable by FRO.

The applicant sought joint decision-making and shared parenting, along with child and spousal support.

The respondent sought sole decision-making, primary residence, and child support from the applicant, with spousal support based on imputed income for the applicant.

The court found the parties had a high-conflict relationship and that the applicant's choices contributed to instability.

The court granted the respondent sole decision-making and primary residence, with the applicant having regular parenting time.

The court imputed income to the respondent for support purposes due to missed EI benefits but declined to impute income to the applicant due to her immigration status.

Spousal support was ordered payable by the respondent to the applicant, with arrears fixed, and the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) were adjusted due to the applicant's basic needs and immigration status.

This is a costs decision following a three-day family law trial concerning parenting and decision-making for a child.

The respondent sought partial indemnity costs, arguing greater success and unreasonable conduct by the applicant.

The applicant sought no costs, citing divided success and modest financial resources.

The court found that while the respondent was somewhat more successful overall, neither party fully met their settlement offers, and both exhibited reasonable and unreasonable conduct at various stages of the litigation.

The court ultimately ordered each party to bear their own costs, concluding that the trial was unnecessary and both parties should have done more to avoid it.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a shared parenting order, seeking sole decision-making and primary residence, while the applicant mother sought to maintain the shared arrangement or a week-about schedule.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the child's aging, the unworkable original schedule, and high parental conflict.

Applying the best interests of the child test, and giving significant weight to the child's expressed views from Voice of the Child Reports, the court ordered joint decision-making and primary residence with the father during the school week, with extended alternate weekend and Wednesday parenting time for the mother, and a week-about schedule during summer holidays.

The court also addressed child support arrears.

This motion to change involved a father's request to vary a final order regarding child support and parenting time, and the mother's cross-motion to strike the father's pleadings and bar future motions due to non-compliance with prior orders.

The court dismissed the father's request to set aside the child support and costs order, citing his repeated non-disclosure and non-compliance.

However, the court stayed his motion to change child support, imposing conditions for lifting the stay, including payment towards outstanding costs.

The court set aside the suspension of the father's parenting time, finding it was made without proper notice, and ordered temporary supervised parenting time, emphasizing the child's right to a relationship with both parents despite serious criminal charges against the father.