Theodora J. Oprea

In an ongoing child protection proceeding, the court issued an endorsement expressing profound frustration with the criminal justice system's handling of a mother's release conditions.

The mother, who pled guilty to failing to provide the necessaries of life, was subject to release terms that restricted her to supervised access with her children, without an exception for family court orders.

Despite the society and the children's lawyers supporting a transition to unsupervised access to facilitate reunification, the Crown refused to consent to a bail variation.

The court highlighted that such restrictive release conditions effectively nullify the family court's jurisdiction to make decisions in the children's best interests, causing unintended and severe emotional harm to the children involved.

Following a trial regarding child support, the applicant mother sought costs of $10,000.

The court found that the respondent father acted in bad faith by repeatedly failing to provide financial disclosure, misrepresenting his income, and commingling his personal finances with his corporation.

As a result of the bad faith finding, the court ordered costs on a full recovery basis pursuant to subrule 24(10) of the Family Law Rules for the child support issues.

The court fixed the costs payable by the respondent to the applicant at $9,237, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The applicant mother sought retroactive child support from the respondent father.

The father failed to provide adequate financial disclosure and misrepresented his income and ownership of a restoration business.

The court applied the Colucci framework, departing from the presumptive start date due to the father's blameworthy conduct and the mother's understandable delay.

The court imputed and grossed up the father's income, ordering him to pay ongoing support and $36,471 in arrears.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following a trial concerning parenting and child support, where the mother was permitted to relocate with the child to Wisconsin.

The court applied the amended Family Law Rules regarding costs, including the technical requirements for offers to settle under subrule 24(12).

The mother was found the successful party and entitled to costs, but the court carefully analyzed the reasonableness and proportionality of the costs claimed, including the claim for second counsel.

The court awarded costs of $36,000 to the mother, payable monthly, considering the father's financial ability and the conduct of both parties.

This Ontario Court of Justice decision addresses a contested relocation and parenting dispute involving an 8-year-old child.

The mother sought sole decision-making responsibility and permission to relocate with the child to Wisconsin, while the father opposed the move and sought joint or parallel decision-making responsibility.

The court carefully analyzed the best interests of the child under the Children’s Law Reform Act, including family violence considerations, the parties’ parenting abilities, and the impact of relocation.

The court found the mother to be the primary caregiver and granted her sole decision-making responsibility, permitting relocation with a detailed parenting time plan for the father.

The father’s income was imputed at $88,800 for child support purposes due to under-employment and lack of financial disclosure.

The mother’s spousal support claim was withdrawn if relocation was permitted.

This is a costs endorsement following a trial where the mother (applicant) was the successful party, as the father's (respondent's) motion to significantly reduce his child and spousal support obligations was dismissed.

The mother sought $13,000 in costs.

The court found that the mother's offer to settle did not meet the technical requirements of subrule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules for enhanced costs because it expired before the hearing started.

However, considering the father's unreasonable conduct, including deliberate under-employment and failure to make an offer to settle, and the mother's reasonable positions, the court awarded the mother $9,000 in costs.

The costs were ordered to be paid in monthly installments and enforced as an incident of support by the Family Responsibility Office, given the case was entirely about support.

The father brought a motion to change existing child and spousal support orders, seeking a reduction based on his alleged income changes due to unemployment.

The mother opposed the motion, claiming the father was intentionally under-employed or unemployed, and sought an increase in child support and an order requiring the father to seek leave for future court proceedings.

The court found the father lacked credibility and had a pattern of intentionally reducing his income to avoid support obligations.

The court imputed income to the father at the level of the existing order and dismissed both the father's motion to change and the mother's request for increased child support.

The mother's request for a leave order was also dismissed, as the court found the father had not abused the court process.

This costs endorsement followed the dismissal of the respondent's motion to find the applicant in contempt of a final parenting order.

The applicant sought full recovery costs and an order requiring the respondent to obtain leave for any future court proceedings.

The court awarded the applicant fixed costs of $4,000, finding the respondent's contempt motion ill-advised and his behaviour unreasonable.

However, the court dismissed the request for a leave order, noting that a single unsuccessful motion does not constitute numerous motions and that such orders should be exercised cautiously in parenting matters.

The applicant sought an interim disbursement of $25,000 to retain an expert to review the respondent's income report in a motion to change child support.

The respondent, a church minister, had previously agreed to an imputed income of $300,000 but now sought a reduction based on a self-retained expert's report.

The court found prima facie merit in the applicant's argument that the respondent was attempting to relitigate the initial proceeding and that there were significant credibility and disclosure issues regarding the respondent's complex financial affairs, which were intertwined with his church and other businesses.

The court granted the interim disbursement, finding it necessary to level the playing field and that the respondent had the ability to pay while the applicant did not.

This trial concerned parenting time and child support for the parties' five-year-old daughter.

The applicant mother sought continued supervised parenting time for the respondent father due to mental health concerns and an imputed income of $90,000 for child support.

The father sought unsupervised parenting time and a lower imputed income.

The court found the mother's account of the father's mental health issues and family violence credible.

It ordered continued supervised access with a progressive plan contingent on the father's psychiatric evaluation and compliance with treatment.

The court imputed an income of $90,000 to the father and ordered child support retroactive to the date of separation, along with significant arrears.

The applicant mother brought a motion in the Ontario Court of Justice to lift the automatic stay of proceedings, which was triggered by the respondent father's commencement of a divorce application in the Superior Court of Justice.

The father's Superior Court application sought divorce, parenting time, equalization of net family property, and sale of family property.

The mother argued that the stay should be lifted due to the father's bad faith, prejudice to the children and herself, and waste of court resources.

The court found the father acted in bad faith by failing to file documents, breaching disclosure and child support orders, not seeking consent for property sale, and delaying the case.

The court determined that lifting the stay was in the children's best interests and served the administration of justice by avoiding duplication of efforts and allowing the OCJ to finalize issues it had extensively case-managed.

This trial concerned the respondent father's child support obligations for the parties' four-year-old son.

The applicant mother sought retroactive child support from November 1, 2018, imputation of the father's income at $43,235, and 50% contribution to the child's swimming expenses.

The father, found in default for failing to file responding material, opposed retroactive support and argued for a later start date, no support during his incarceration, and no ongoing support.

The court found the father in default, dismissed his request for an adjournment and extension, and proceeded with an uncontested trial on support issues, allowing the father only to make oral submissions.

The court imputed the father's annual income at $42,000 from November 1, 2018, including during his incarceration, citing his blameworthy conduct and the child's disadvantaged circumstances.

The court also ordered the father to pay 50% of the child's swimming expenses as an extraordinary expense.

The father was credited $1,000 for past payments, and arrears were fixed at $14,779.

The applicant sought an uncontested trial after the respondent failed to answer her application for divorce, partition and sale of the matrimonial home, exclusive possession, and child support.

The court noted the respondent in default and ordered the immediate listing and sale of the jointly-owned matrimonial home, granting the applicant full carriage of the sale.

However, the court declined to grant exclusive possession due to insufficient evidence of violence or alternative accommodation for the respondent.

The court also declined to immediately divide the sale proceeds or impute income to the respondent for child support without further financial disclosure, ordering the proceeds to be held in trust and the respondent to provide disclosure.

The request to sever the divorce from corollary relief was denied as reasonable arrangements for child support had not yet been established.

The applicant mother sought to strike out or stay the respondent father's amended motion to change a final order concerning custody, access, and a restraining order.

The mother argued the father failed to pay outstanding costs orders and that his motion was devoid of merit.

The court found the father had not complied with multiple court orders, including payment of costs and production of documents, and that his claims of a material change in circumstances were insincere and contradicted by his own statements.

The court ordered a stay of the father's motion to change, emphasizing that while striking pleadings in child-related matters is rare, it is appropriate when there is non-compliance and a lack of merit.

An urgent motion brought by the father seeking the immediate return of a five-month-old child to his primary residence in Woodbridge, or alternatively, an equal parenting schedule.

The mother brought a cross-motion seeking to maintain the child's primary residence with her in Toronto and to establish specified access for the father.

The court found that the father's characterization of the mother as having "absconded" with the child was inaccurate and unsupported by evidence.

The court determined that the child's best interests were served by maintaining stability with the primary caregiver (the mother) while developing a relationship with the father through regular and frequent contact.

The court rejected the father's demand for equal parenting time as inappropriate for a five-month-old infant and adopted a modified version of the mother's proposed parenting schedule, with provisions for gradual expansion after four weeks.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion to suspend the respondent father's access to their three-year-old daughter due to concerns about his compliance with COVID-19 public health protocols.

The court had temporarily suspended access pending an affidavit from the father.

After reviewing the father's affidavit and hearing his assurances that he was following all provincial COVID-19 precautions, the court rescinded the temporary stay and reinstated the father's access pursuant to the existing parenting order.

Costs were reserved.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion during the COVID-19 pandemic to suspend the respondent father's access to their 3-year-old daughter.

The mother had repeatedly requested assurances from the father that he was complying with public health guidelines regarding social distancing and third-party exposure during his parenting time.

The father refused to meaningfully engage or provide the requested information.

The court found the mother's requests reasonable and child-focused, and held that the father's failure to communicate and cooperate regarding the child's safety was unacceptable.

The court ordered the father's access suspended until he files an affidavit addressing the mother's COVID-19 concerns to the court's satisfaction.

The applicant, a prominent religious leader, sought a publication ban and sealing order regarding a paternity application, initially claiming he had no sexual relations with the respondent.

After DNA testing confirmed he was the father, he continued to seek the ban to protect his reputation and commercial interests.

The court dismissed the request, applying the open courts principle and finding that the public interest in transparency outweighed the applicant's desire to suppress truthful information about his conduct.

This is a costs decision arising from a motion for temporary child and spousal support.

The applicant (mother) sought temporary support for their one-year-old daughter and herself from the respondent (father).

The parties agreed on the amounts of child and spousal support but disagreed on the start date.

The court ordered support to commence on June 1, 2015, and permitted the father to repay arrears at $125 per month.

The applicant was successful on the motion and sought costs of $6,000, while the respondent sought no costs award.

The court awarded costs to the successful applicant.

This is a costs decision following a three-day Hague Convention hearing in which the court ordered the mother to return two children to their habitual residence in North Carolina and stayed the mother's custody claim.

The respondent father sought full recovery of costs totalling $38,304.87, while the mother sought no costs award.

The court awarded costs of $20,000 to the father, inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, with payment suspended for one year to allow the mother to regularize her immigration status and stabilize her living arrangements with the children.

The court permitted enforcement against the mother's real property interests and set-off against any property settlement or division owing to her.