Steve Duplain

The applicant sought costs following her success at a family law trial and a summary judgment motion.

The respondent argued he had an inability to pay due to being on long-term disability and claimed the applicant's costs were excessive.

The court found the respondent's litigation conduct to be unreasonable and unsubstantiated, noting his claimed impecuniosity could not be used as a shield for such conduct.

The court awarded the applicant $35,000 for the trial and $30,000 for the summary judgment motion, payable at $2,000 per month.

The parties brought a motion to change a 2019 consent order that provided for shared decision-making and equal parenting time.

The mother initially sought to formalize a week-on/week-off schedule, but amended her motion to seek primary residence and sole decision-making after the father unilaterally relocated to Smith Falls, an hour away from the child's school in Ottawa.

The father also sought primary residence and sole decision-making.

The court found the father's relocation constituted a material change in circumstances.

Applying the best interests of the child factors, the court ordered that the child reside primarily with the mother to avoid a lengthy daily commute and maintain stability.

The court ordered shared decision-making responsibility, but granted the mother final decision-making authority in the event of an impasse.

The father applied for sole custody, child support, and an order regarding the mother's access rights.

The mother had a history of child abuse and involvement with the Children's Aid Society, and had not seen the children in over two years following a public altercation with the father.

The court granted sole custody to the father, finding it in the children's best interests.

The court ordered a graduated access schedule for the mother, beginning with supervised visits.

Additionally, the court imputed an annual income of $26,000 to the mother, who was unemployed by choice, and ordered her to pay $391 per month in child support.

Following a motion to change where the applicant father achieved partial success, he sought $20,000 in costs.

The respondent mother argued success was divided and no costs should be ordered.

The court found the applicant was partially successful, having obtained a finding of contempt and a reduction in access, though he did not obtain supervised access.

Considering the respondent's limited ability to pay and the lack of offers to settle, the court awarded the applicant $12,000 in costs.

The applicant sought a divorce, child and spousal support, equalization of net family property, and costs in an uncontested trial after the respondent's answer was struck.

The court imputed an income of $78,600 to the respondent due to his failure to provide financial disclosure.

The court calculated retroactive child support, resulting in the applicant owing the respondent for overpayments, which were offset against the respondent's retroactive spousal support arrears.

The court ordered the respondent to pay ongoing indexed spousal support of $1,070 per month, an equalization payment of $6,196, and $4,000 in costs.

The paternal grandparents brought a motion for access to their six-year-old grandson.

The child's mother, who had primary care, opposed the motion, citing historical conflict, the grandparents' previous refusal to return the child, and inappropriate behaviour.

The grandparents alleged the mother provided inadequate care, but the Children's Aid Society confirmed the mother provided a safe and stable home.

Applying the Chapman framework, the court deferred to the mother's decision, finding her actions were not arbitrary and that extending access would introduce unnecessary conflict contrary to the child's best interests.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking to exercise access to his four daughters following allegations of sexual touching that had led to the suspension of access.

The children had been interviewed by child protection authorities and police, but no criminal charges were laid and the evidentiary record before the court was limited.

The court found the situation troubling due to the prolonged restriction of access and unresolved factual disputes, including potential concerns about alienating behaviour.

The court ordered therapeutic counselling for the children and directed that a social worker supervise a series of structured community visits between the father and the children, followed by continued supervised access.

The matter was scheduled for further case management and the involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer was noted.

The Children's Aid Society sought a finding that two children were in need of protection and an order placing them in the care of their mother and her spouse.

The father sought to have the children returned to his care.

The court found the children in need of protection due to exposure to domestic violence, drug trafficking, weapons, and parental alienation by the father.

The court granted joint custody to the mother and her spouse, with no access to the father, finding that the father's anti-social behaviour and refusal to follow court orders posed a significant risk of emotional and physical harm to the children.