Timothy Minnema

The applicant father brought a motion for primary residence and sole decision-making of the parties' twin children.

The respondent mother had a history of making false allegations of sexual abuse against the father, engaging in severe alienating behaviours, and unilaterally moving the children out of the jurisdiction in breach of a court order.

Relying on a section 30 parenting assessment that identified severe alienation and recommended a custody reversal, the court found a material change in circumstances.

The court granted the father interim sole decision-making and primary residence, and ordered that the mother have no contact with the children for 90 days, followed by supervised parenting time, to allow the children to reintegrate into the father's care.

The respondent father brought a motion to change seeking to retroactively vary a 2010 child support order and rescind accumulated arrears.

The original order imputed an income of $35,000 to the father due to unemployment.

The father argued that medical issues prevented him from obtaining meaningful employment since 2010.

The court found the medical evidence insufficient and noted the father's lack of effort to find work, concluding there was no material change in circumstances.

The court also declined to rescind the arrears, finding the father had not established a complete inability to pay now or in the future.

The motion to change was dismissed.

The respondent was successful at a Focussed Hearing regarding the validity of a Post Nuptial Agreement and sought full indemnity costs of $144,762.72, including costs for prior steps.

The applicant argued for no costs or reduced costs, and requested a stay of enforcement pending her appeal.

The court declined to award costs for prior conferences, focusing only on the Focussed Hearing.

Finding the respondent's claimed fees on the higher side and no basis for full indemnity, the court awarded the respondent costs of $37,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The court also stayed enforcement of the costs award until the appeal is concluded.

The applicant mother and respondent father sought orders regarding parenting time and child support for their three-year-old child.

The father sought expanded, unsupervised parenting time, while the mother sought to suspend his parenting time due to the child's recent severe resistance and separation anxiety.

The court found no evidence of family violence or intentional alienation, attributing the child's resistance to normal developmental stages, the mother's anxiety, and the infrequency of visits.

The court ordered a step-up parenting plan, beginning with virtual visits and progressing to alternate weekend overnights.

The court also ordered the father to pay retroactive child support from December 1, 2020, and ongoing support of $539 per month, with a $50 monthly reduction for travel expenses.

The parties separated and the mother relocated from Kingston to Welland.

The father sought primary residence of the three children in Kingston, while the mother sought primary residence in Welland.

The court applied the best interests of the child test, including the relocation factors under the Children's Law Reform Act, and determined that the children should reside primarily with the father in Kingston to maintain stability.

The court also imputed income to the mother based on full-time minimum wage for the purpose of calculating retroactive and ongoing child support.

The respondent mother brought a motion to set aside two default judgments made after she absconded with the parties' children to Kenya in breach of a court order.

The mother claimed she fell ill in Kenya and lost access to communication, leading to her default.

The court rejected her explanation as implausible and found she intentionally ignored the court process.

Applying the test for setting aside a default judgment, the court concluded the mother failed to provide a plausible excuse, and setting aside the orders would cause substantial prejudice to the applicant father and undermine the administration of justice.

The motion was dismissed.

The respondent brought a motion to distribute net sale proceeds from two jointly owned properties held in trust, which the applicant did not oppose.

The applicant brought a cross-motion seeking the sale of a third jointly held property and a preservation order to hold the net proceeds in trust to secure her claims for spousal support and unjust enrichment.

The court ordered the sale of the third property and the release of the trust funds.

However, the court dismissed the applicant's requests for preservation orders, finding she failed to establish irreparable harm for the support claim and failed to meet the test for a Mareva injunction regarding the unjust enrichment claim.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change seeking retroactive child support and the inclusion of the respondent father's tax-free Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) disability pension in his income for support purposes.

The court found that the VAC pension should be included in the father's income and grossed up.

Applying the DBS and Michel frameworks, the court found no blameworthy conduct by the father and ordered retroactive child support back to the date of effective notice, rather than the date of the income change.

No costs were awarded due to mixed success.

The respondent husband brought a motion for equal regular parenting time and holiday time, while the applicant wife brought a cross-motion seeking a different parenting schedule and retroactive child support.

The parties had previously entered into a separation agreement providing for joint custody and liberal access for the husband, which had been gradually expanded.

The court dismissed the husband's motion for equal parenting time, finding that he failed to establish a pre-separation shared parenting status quo or explain why the current arrangement should be altered on an interim basis, and instead granted the wife's proposed schedule.

The court also granted the wife's request for retroactive child support based on the husband's full income, including overtime, effective October 1, 2020.

The respondent husband brought a motion to change seeking to reduce and eventually terminate his spousal support obligations to the applicant wife.

He argued that his retirement, deteriorating health, the wife's remarriage, and her alleged self-sufficiency constituted material changes in circumstances.

The court found that the husband's retirement was followed by similar employment, his health did not prevent him from working, and the wife's failure to find sustainable employment was reasonable given her long-standing mental health issues.

The court concluded that the husband failed to establish a material change in circumstances and dismissed the motion to change.

The respondent husband brought an interim motion to stay the enforcement of a separation agreement and temporarily reduce his spousal support obligation from $10,000 to $3,000 per month, pending a Motion to Change.

He argued his income had significantly decreased due to a partial retirement and business losses.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the husband failed to establish a strong prima facie case for the reduction, as his reduced employment income was voluntary and the losses stemmed from a speculative new business venture.

The parties resolved parenting issues prior to trial, leaving retroactive and ongoing child support in dispute.

The father, an IT professional, had previously paid support based on an unwritten 'rolling average' of his income.

After losing his job, he made significant RRSP withdrawals and reduced his support payments.

The court rejected the rolling average approach as it was not in writing, and included the RRSP withdrawals in the father's income for child support purposes, finding he failed to prove they were used primarily for legal fees.

The father was ordered to pay $15,184 in retroactive child support and $463 in retroactive section 7 expenses.

Following a successful motion for contempt against the applicant mother for unilaterally withholding the children, the respondent father sought substantial indemnity costs of $18,429.17.

The court considered the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, noting the mother's unreasonable behaviour and failure to accept reasonable offers to settle.

The court awarded the father costs fixed at $11,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The respondent mother brought a motion for an equally shared parenting schedule for the parties' three children.

The applicant father had unilaterally suspended the mother's in-person contact with the children based on various allegations, which prompted a Children's Aid Society investigation that ultimately found no safety concerns.

The court rejected the father's reliance on highly suspicious hearsay evidence, including a purported chat message from one of the children.

Applying the maximum contact principle and the best interests of the children, the court granted the mother's motion and ordered an equally shared temporary parenting schedule.

The respondent father brought a motion for contempt against the applicant mother for failing to return their two children to Ontario from British Columbia following her March Break access.

The mother claimed she withheld the children due to COVID-19 travel risks and the child's asthma.

The court found the mother intentionally breached a clear court order, noting she had unilaterally decided to keep the children despite no evidence of travel restrictions preventing their return.

The mother was found in contempt, and the court ordered temporary adjustments to the parenting schedule to facilitate the children's return and make-up time.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for the immediate return of her two children, who had remained with the respondent father after March break during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The father had unilaterally withheld the children, alleging physical abuse by the mother, which was investigated and closed by child protection authorities without finding imminent concerns.

The court found the father's actions to be a "self-help remedy" contrary to the rule of law and granted the mother's motion for the children's immediate return, along with a modest request for costs.

The applicant mother sought an urgent hearing during the COVID-19 pandemic to suspend the respondent father's equal parenting time, alleging his non-compliance with public health measures endangered the children.

The court, acting as a triage judge, found the matter met the test for urgency but identified procedural deficiencies, including an unsworn affidavit and improper email service of the Motion to Change.

While acknowledging urgency, the court declined to issue an immediate interim order suspending parenting time, deeming it not just or proportional at that stage.

Directions were given for the applicant to rectify service and affirm her affidavit, after which a hearing schedule would be set.

The applicant father brought a motion to restrict the respondent mother's access to their two children due to concerns about her mental health, seizures, and her new living situation with a partner who had a past sexual assault conviction.

The court considered the children's best interests under the Children's Law Reform Act.

While acknowledging the father's legitimate concerns, the court found that a drastic change to the existing access order was not warranted.

Instead, it made minor adjustments to the safety plan, eliminating overnight access temporarily and imposing conditions for adult supervision during access, with instructions to notify the father in case of a seizure.

The court dismissed the father's requests for access to occur outside the mother's home and a blanket no-contact order with her new partner.

The applicant father sought an urgent hearing during the COVID-19 pandemic, raising concerns about the safety and well-being of his two young children (ages 1 and 3) in relation to the mother's access, physical and mental health, and choice of partner.

The court, acting as a triage judge, determined that the matter met the test for urgency as outlined in various Notices to the Profession issued during the pandemic, noting that the existing interim order was on a without prejudice basis and circumstances had substantially changed.

The court granted the urgent hearing, setting a condensed schedule for responding materials and scheduling a teleconference hearing for April 17, 2020.

The applicant Society brought an urgent motion during the COVID-19 emergency period seeking an order regarding the safety of two children.

The mother's partner was being investigated for potential child abuse after concerning pictures were found on his computer.

The parents had agreed to a safety plan where the partner resided outside the home and had supervised access.

The triage judge dismissed the motion, finding no current urgency as the parents were complying with the safety plan and had not indicated any intention to revoke their consent.