Thora Espinet

The children's aid society sought an order for extended society care for a four-year-old child diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder.

The parents, who had a history of severe intimate partner violence, substance abuse, and criminal charges, sought a supervision order placing the child with the paternal grandmother.

The court found the child remained in need of protection due to the parents' ongoing volatile relationship and inability to meet the child's significant special needs.

The court rejected the kinship plan, finding the paternal grandmother lacked the capacity and insight to care for the child.

The child was placed in extended society care with limited supervised access for the parents, who were designated as access recipients rather than access holders to avoid impairing future adoption opportunities.

The respondent father brought two contempt motions against the applicant mother for alleged breaches of a 2013 custody and access order.

The court found the mother in contempt for the period between October 2017 to April 18, 2018 and on September 21, October 5 and 19, 2018, but rejected allegations regarding earlier periods.

The court determined that while the mother initially facilitated access, she deliberately interfered with the father's relationship with the children following an October 2017 incident by creating an atmosphere that supported the children's expressed reluctance to visit.

The court imposed a graduated access schedule with financial penalties for missed visits rather than ordering extended makeup access or imposing a fine.

Following a family law motion involving multiple heads of relief, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The moving party sought $45,000 on a substantial indemnity basis, alleging the responding party acted in bad faith and failed to comply with earlier court orders.

The responding party argued the claimed costs were excessive for a short motion and requested her own costs or that costs follow the event at trial.

Applying Family Law Rule 24 and the reasonableness principle from appellate authority, the court found the moving party had been largely successful but that the claimed fees were excessive for a one-hour motion.

Because the responding party acted in bad faith regarding issues involving the child and the sale of the matrimonial home, the court ordered partial recovery costs.

In a high‑conflict family law motion, the applicant sought temporary custody orders and relief relating to the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court found evidence that the respondent had interfered with the applicant’s court‑ordered access and had failed to cooperate with the Office of the Children’s Lawyer investigation.

The court declined to grant temporary custody but ordered the re‑appointment of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer and maintained the existing access order while warning that custody could be reconsidered depending on future conduct.

Regarding property, the court ordered steps to facilitate the sale of the matrimonial home, authorized the applicant to undertake staging work up to $10,000, dispensed with the respondent’s consent to the sale, and directed that sale proceeds be held in trust pending further order.

The court awarded costs to the paternal aunt following the dismissal of the father's motion to set aside a final custody order dated April 24, 2012.

The father's motion, filed in January 2013, sought to set aside the order and obtain temporary access to his child.

The paternal aunt filed a cross-motion for a restraining order.

The case proceeded through multiple court appearances and case conferences over approximately 20 months.

The paternal aunt made an Offer to Settle on January 20, 2014, offering to settle the motion if the father withdrew it and paid $2,500 in costs.

The father rejected the offer and proceeded to hearing, where his motion was dismissed.

The court found the offer was more favourable to the father than the final result and applied the costs consequences under subrule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The court awarded costs of $8,800 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The father brought a motion to set aside a final custody order dated April 24, 2012, which granted custody of the child to the aunt on a default basis.

The father claimed he was not properly served with the application and that the aunt committed fraud.

The court found that the father was properly served with the court documents, signed acknowledgement of service cards with full knowledge of their contents, and was well aware of the court case.

The court also considered the father's delay in bringing the motion, his failure to promptly pursue the motion while taking substantive steps in the case (the "fresh step" principle), and the prejudice to the aunt and child.

The motion was dismissed.