Tanya N. Howell

The father brought a motion to change a child support order dated September 29, 2015, which required him to pay $508 monthly for two children based on an imputed annual income of $35,000.

The father sought to reduce or eliminate support based on his actual income, claiming he was on social assistance.

The mother and the City of Toronto (assignee of child support arrears) opposed the motion.

The court found no change in circumstances warranting modification.

The father remained intentionally unemployed, having pursued education instead of employment, restricted his job search to welding positions despite admitting he could find other work, and maintained a lifestyle inconsistent with social assistance income alone.

The court dismissed the motion and upheld the imputed income, ordering arrears payments of $200 monthly.

A custody and access trial involving two parents seeking sole custody of their three-year-old son.

The mother sought custody based on being the primary caregiver since birth, while the father sought custody citing the mother's emotional instability, repeated threats of self-harm and harm to the child, and mental health concerns.

The court awarded sole custody to the father, finding that while the mother adequately meets the child's physical, medical, and educational needs, her emotional instability and inability to control her behavior in front of the child creates a real risk of emotional harm.

The court granted the mother substantial access including alternate weekends and weekday visits, and ordered the father to pay child support retroactively.

The court also made critical findings regarding the inadequate response by Native Child and Family Services of Toronto.

A mid-trial ruling on the admissibility of voice recordings and certified transcriptions of telephone conversations between the parents in a custody dispute.

The father sought to introduce ten recordings of conversations with the mother to support his claim that she is emotionally unstable and poses a risk of emotional harm to their young son.

The mother objected on grounds that the recordings were made surreptitiously and that public policy should discourage such evidence.

The court admitted both the recordings and transcripts into evidence, finding either that the recordings were not surreptitious (as the mother had been advised of recording in 2014) or, alternatively, that the probative value outweighed policy considerations given the importance of the issues and the best interests of the child.