Susan Galarneau

The Children's Aid Society sought a finding that two children were in need of protection and an order placing them in Extended Society Care.

The mother opposed the application, seeking the return of the children to her care, supported by the father.

Following a lengthy trial, the court found the children in need of protection due to ongoing exposure to domestic violence, chronic school absenteeism, and the mother's inability to meet their basic needs.

The court concluded that the mother's plan was not viable and placed the children in Extended Society Care, while granting specified access to the mother, father, and siblings.

The applicant sought costs of $1,800 following a successful motion for disclosure.

The respondent argued that each party should bear their own costs or that costs should be fixed at $100, citing limited financial means and an offer to settle.

The court found the applicant was the more successful party and that the respondent's conduct was unreasonable for failing to provide evidence supporting her claim that disclosure would be too onerous.

The court fixed costs at $1,300 payable by the respondent, noting that her failure to pay previous costs awards of $42,000 should not insulate her from further costs.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for temporary sole custody, primary residence, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home after the respondent mother removed the children from the home without notice.

The mother sought temporary sole custody and limited access for the father, alleging safety concerns related to his PTSD.

The court condemned the mother's self-help tactics and withholding of access, ordering temporary joint custody and a shared parenting schedule where the parents rotate in and out of the matrimonial home.

The issues of exclusive possession and costs were adjourned for further evidence.

The mother was substantially successful on the father's motion to change child support and sought full indemnity costs.

The court reviewed the parties' behaviour, time spent, and offers to settle under the Family Law Rules.

The mother had made an offer to settle that was more favourable to the father than the final decision, entitling her to full recovery costs from the date of the offer.

The court awarded the mother $13,000 in fees plus disbursements and HST, and ordered that the costs be deemed as additional support enforceable through the Family Responsibility Office.

The father brought a motion to change a final consent order for child support, which stated it would not be varied 'for any reason whatsoever'.

He argued that the children's circumstances had changed, as one child had finished university and started working, and the other had moved to British Columbia for university.

The court dismissed the motion to change support, finding that these changes were reasonably contemplated at the time the original order was made and therefore did not constitute a material change in circumstances.

The court did grant orders requiring the mother to pay her share of tuition at the beginning of each semester and allowing the father to remove the older child from his life insurance policy.

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 brought a motion to compel disclosure following an earlier court order requiring the respondent to provide financial information relevant to determining income for support purposes.

The court found that the respondent had failed to comply with the portion of the order requiring confirmation from a bank regarding the existence of any additional business accounts.

The respondent was ordered to provide further documentation confirming whether any additional business accounts existed.

While the court found compliance with respect to disclosure about a car allowance, it ordered supporting documentation for expense account entries to allow proper assessment of their reasonableness.

The court also held that the applicant was entitled to adjourn the trial to properly evaluate the respondent’s financial means.

Following a family law decision concerning child access and support, the court determined the issue of costs.

The successful party sought costs after prevailing on all claims, including the dismissal of the opposing party’s motion to change.

The court applied Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, which presumes that the successful party is entitled to costs and permits full recovery where a party has acted unreasonably or in bad faith.

The court found that the responding party maintained unreasonable positions, refused to settle support issues despite ultimately conceding the calculations, and increased litigation costs.

Costs were therefore awarded on a full indemnity basis and fixed in a lump sum.

The applicant father brought a motion to change custody and access.

The court previously granted primary care to the father and ordered interim access for the respondent mother, who struggled with cocaine addiction.

The mother sought overnight access but admitted to a recent relapse and failed to participate in court-ordered hair follicle testing.

The court found that overnight access was not in the child's best interests due to the mother's ongoing substance abuse issues.

The court ordered continued daytime access, subject to the condition that the mother not be under the influence of drugs or alcohol, with the father having the discretion to cancel visits if he believed she was intoxicated.

The applicant brought a motion for interim and retroactive child and spousal support, financial disclosure, and orders requiring the respondent to maintain medical, dental, and life insurance coverage.

The respondent sought an adjournment pending disclosure or, alternatively, an order setting interim support and disclosure obligations.

The court found the applicant’s pursuit of a B.Ed. program was reasonable and rejected the respondent’s argument that she was intentionally underemployed, imputing income to her at $20,000 annually.

Based on the parties’ incomes, the court ordered interim child support of $1,252 per month while the children primarily reside with the applicant and interim spousal support of $700 per month for a defined period.

Additional disclosure deadlines were imposed on both parties.