Stephen E. J. Paull

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.

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.

This case involves a motion to change brought by the mother (C.M.R.) seeking to vary existing decision-making and parenting time orders for the parties' child, K.R. The mother initially sought sole decision-making and primary residence, while the father (R.S.C.) sought dismissal of the motion and child support.

By the end of the trial, the mother sought joint decision-making and shared parenting, and the father conceded a material change in circumstances.

The court found a material change due to the child's academic struggles and the mother's improved stability.

The court ordered joint decision-making with the father having the final say in disagreements, and maintained the child's primary residence with the father, with expanded parenting time for the mother.

Child support was ordered from the mother to the father, and section 7 expenses were to be shared equally.

The Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County brought a motion for temporary care and custody of a child, R., seeking placement with her aunt and uncle.

The father opposed, requesting the child's return to his care or expanded access, while the mother and aunt/uncle supported the Society's plan.

The court applied the two-part test under subsection 94(10) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, requiring the Society to demonstrate reasonable grounds of a real possibility of harm if the child were returned to parental care, and that an interim supervision order would be insufficient.

The court found a long history of neglect, including unhygienic living conditions, missed medical appointments, school absences, and concerns arising from the tragic death of another child in the parents' care.

The parents' responses were deemed insufficient to refute the established risks.

The court concluded that the child was at risk of harm and could not be adequately protected by a supervision order with either parent.

Consequently, the motion for temporary care and custody with the aunt and uncle was granted, with supervised access for the parents, and the Society was directed to monitor the child's hygiene and school attendance.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following a 9-day trial concerning contact between a child and the maternal family.

The applicants, the maternal aunt, uncle, and grandmother, sought full recovery of costs based on their success at trial and the respondents' unreasonable and alleged bad faith approach.

The respondents, the child's father and paternal grandparents, sought no costs, claiming divided success.

The court found the applicants were the clearly successful parties, having obtained an order for regular in-person and unsupervised contact that met or exceeded their settlement offer.

While the respondents' conduct in limiting contact was deemed unreasonable, the court did not find it constituted bad faith.

The court declined to award costs for prior steps in the litigation, citing the presumption against such awards unless specifically reserved.

Ultimately, the court awarded partial recovery of costs to the applicants.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking an order for the immediate return of the child's primary residence to Oxford County, alleging the respondent mother unilaterally relocated with the child to Scarborough without notice.

The mother argued she was fleeing family violence perpetrated by the father's mother and that her return to Scarborough was necessary due to her support network.

The court found the father did not consent to the move and acted promptly.

Despite the mother's failure to comply with notice provisions and her self-help actions, the court dismissed the father's motion, allowing the child to remain in Scarborough temporarily.

The decision was based on the child's best interests, particularly the mother's significant reliance on support services in Scarborough that would be jeopardized by a return to Oxford County.

The applicant and respondent each brought motions seeking sole decision-making and primary residence for their two children.

The primary issues were the children's COVID-19 vaccination and the eldest child's attendance at in-person school, with the respondent supporting both and the applicant opposing.

The court granted the respondent sole decision-making authority for the children's COVID-19 vaccination, finding it to be in their best interests based on public health guidance.

The court also ordered the children to attend in-person schooling starting September 2022, affirming the presumption that in-person learning is generally in a child's best interest.

The applicant retained primary care, and the court maintained the existing interim parenting schedule, while also requesting a Voice of the Child Report from the Office of the Children's Lawyer regarding parenting time and school jurisdiction.

This trial concerned the issue of parenting time for the father (respondent) with the parties' three-year-old daughter.

The mother (applicant) sought an order for no parenting time, alleging highly abusive and stalking behaviours by the father.

The father sought supervised access to develop a relationship with his daughter, alleging the mother had unjustly denied him access through fabrications.

The court conducted a detailed credibility assessment, finding the mother's evidence inconsistent and lacking corroboration, while the father's evidence was found to be clear, convincing, and cogent.

The court concluded that the mother had unreasonably withheld the father's parenting time and that it was in the child's best interests to commence supervised access.