Theodore Michael Charuk

The respondent brought a motion seeking to enforce parenting time orders, alleging the applicant was alienating their daughter.

The motion was dismissed, as was the applicant's verbal request for a section 30 assessment.

The applicant sought full recovery costs of $17,972.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $8,000 to the applicant, finding the respondent did not act unreasonably in bringing the motion and noting the applicant's divided success regarding the section 30 assessment.

The respondent father brought a motion to enforce existing shared parenting orders and for makeup time, alleging the applicant mother was alienating their 14-year-old daughter, who refused to attend parenting time.

The daughter suffered from severe anxiety and had threatened suicide.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it could not determine on untested affidavit evidence whether the mother was responsible for the non-compliance or whether forcing compliance would be in the child's best interests given her mental health issues.

The mother's informal request for a section 30 assessment was also dismissed without prejudice.

The applicant father and respondent mother both brought motions regarding parenting time for their two-year-old child.

The father sought unsupervised parenting time, while the mother sought professionally supervised contact due to the father's absence and alleged substance abuse.

The court ordered temporary supervised parenting time, finding that the father and child were essentially strangers.

However, the court rejected the need for a professional centre, allowing the paternal grandparents and aunt to supervise the visits at the paternal home, subject to conditions including abstinence from drugs and alcohol.

During the COVID-19 court suspension, the father brought an urgent motion alleging his 8-year-old son expressed suicidal ideation due to unhappiness at the mother's residence.

The mother disputed the urgency, characterizing the child as "normal, happy." The Triage Judge found the allegations potentially urgent, emphasizing the need for prompt investigation in serious child welfare matters.

The court set an expedited schedule for responding materials and a teleconference hearing to formally determine urgency and make necessary orders.

The parties, who share joint custody and equal parenting time of their three-year-old child, brought a last-minute motion to determine which school the child should attend for Junior Kindergarten.

The applicant mother proposed a school in Waterdown, while the respondent father proposed a school in Ancaster.

The court found both proposals had merit but ultimately ordered the child to be enrolled in the respondent's school district, citing the greater long-term stability of the respondent's residential and employment situation.

No costs were awarded.

This is a costs endorsement following an eight-day trial primarily concerning custody and access in a mobility context.

The Respondent was successful at trial, having met or exceeded her Offer to Settle, which presumptively entitled her to costs.

The Respondent sought full recovery costs of $35,206.50.

The Applicant argued for no costs or nominal costs, citing the inherent difficulty of mobility cases and his precarious financial circumstances.

The Court found the Respondent's conduct was not unreasonable and that success was not divided.

However, considering the unique challenges of mobility disputes, the Applicant's reasonable pursuit of the status quo, and his precarious financial situation, the Court exercised its discretion under Rule 24(11)(f) to mitigate the costs award.

The parties separated and initially shared parenting of their two children in Hamilton.

The mother subsequently moved to Brampton and sought sole custody and primary residence, while the father sought joint custody and to maintain the shared parenting schedule in Hamilton.

The court found that the mother had always been the primary caregiver and that the father required significant third-party assistance to manage his parenting time.

Applying the best interests of the child test under the Children's Law Reform Act and the relocation principles from Gordon v. Goertz, the court awarded sole custody and primary residence to the mother in Brampton, with the father having parenting time three weekends out of four and mid-week visits.

Child support was also ordered.

Addendum to a family law judgment clarifying additional terms relating to parenting access, reimbursement of mediation and legal consultation fees, transfer of a motor vehicle, and continuation of benefits coverage.

The court confirmed that access would proceed in accordance with previously agreed Minutes of Settlement.

The applicant was ordered to reimburse the respondent for mediation costs and potentially legal consultation fees if undisputed.

The applicant was also directed to transfer his interest in a vehicle to the respondent and to maintain benefit coverage for the children and the respondent until the divorce was finalized.

The applicant father sought to prevent the respondent mother from relocating to the Netherlands with their two young children.

The mother argued she could not find suitable employment in the Hamilton area and had a job offer and family support in the Netherlands.

The court applied the mobility framework from Gordon v. Goertz, focusing on the children's best interests and the maximum contact principle.

The court found that both parents were highly involved and capable, and that moving the children to the Netherlands would drastically reduce their contact with the father, which was not in their best interests.

The court denied the move to the Netherlands but permitted the mother to seek employment elsewhere in Ontario or Canada, excluding New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.

The court also made orders for joint custody, access, child support, and spousal support.