Tracy Engelking

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a summary judgment motion seeking a final order for extended society care for the child, C.R.P., who is an Inuk child and has been in care beyond statutory timelines.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing there was a triable issue regarding the child's best interests, particularly given her improving mental health and active search for housing.

The court dismissed the Society's motion, emphasizing the "highly cautionary" approach to summary judgment in child protection cases, especially those involving Indigenous children, and the need to consider "super weighted" best interests factors under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 and the Federal Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Metis children, youth and families.

The court found genuine issues requiring a trial, particularly concerning the interplay of statutory timelines and Indigenous child welfare principles.

This decision resolves outstanding financial issues and costs following a partial settlement during a family law trial.

The court imputed income to the applicant for support purposes, determined proportionate shares for section 7 extraordinary expenses, and addressed claims related to the matrimonial home.

The respondent's claim for matrimonial home expenses was dismissed due to a prior separation agreement.

The court also made a costs order, finding mixed success on financial issues and ordering partial recovery costs, with a net amount payable by the respondent to the applicant.

The father (D.L.) brought a motion to change decision-making authority and sought an order for the children to participate in the Family Bridges program, alleging parental alienation by the mother (J.L.).

The mother opposed, seeking sole decision-making authority and arguing the children were estranged due to the father's conduct.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding no evidence of parental alienation and concluding that the children's reasons for rejecting the father were legitimate.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making authority.

The applicant father brought a Hague Convention application seeking the return of his two children to the UK.

The respondent mother sought an adjournment pending the children's refugee claims in Canada.

The court bifurcated the hearing, proceeding first with the issues of habitual residence and wrongful removal.

The court found that the family had relocated to London, UK, following the end of the father's diplomatic posting in Canada, and that the children were habitually resident there.

The mother's removal of the children to Canada was found to be wrongful.

The second stage of the hearing regarding whether the children should be ordered returned was deferred until after the refugee claims are decided.

The applicant father and respondent mother sought primary residence of their six-year-old child.

The mother, a general surgeon, had relocated to Kapuskasing for employment and sought to have the child reside primarily with her.

The father sought to have the child remain in Renfrew with him.

The court analyzed the best interests of the child under the Children's Law Reform Act, finding the mother to be more attuned to the child's needs and better equipped to support his relationships.

The court ordered that the child's primary residence be with the mother in Kapuskasing, with specified parenting time for the father.

Following a family law trial where the court found the applicant mother had alienated the children from the respondent father, the parties settled all outstanding issues except costs.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs of $110,000, arguing he was the successful party and the applicant acted unreasonably.

The applicant sought costs of up to $96,579, arguing she was more successful as the children remained in her primary care.

The court found the applicant's behaviour was unreasonable and necessitated the trial.

The court awarded the respondent costs of $60,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

In a child protection proceeding, the child's caregivers brought a motion to remove the biological father as a party to the proceeding.

The biological father brought a cross-motion for interim parenting time or care of the child.

The court dismissed the motion to remove the biological father as a party, finding that he met the statutory definition of a parent and that removing him would be a denial of natural justice.

The court granted the biological father's motion for interim access, ordering supervised visits to foster a relationship between him and the child.

The moving party sought an extension of time and leave to appeal a family arbitration award that ordered her to pay $112,140 in retroactive spousal support.

The court granted the extension of time, finding the delay was short, explained, and caused no prejudice.

However, the court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, concluding the moving party failed to demonstrate that the arbitrator made any error of law regarding the recipient's needs, delay, or hardship to the payor.

Following a trial to recalculate an equalization payment based on the applicant's pension, the applicant sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The court found that the trial was entirely unnecessary, as the respondent had access to the applicant's expert report well in advance and the respondent's own expert reached essentially the same conclusion.

Furthermore, the applicant had made multiple offers to settle that were as favourable or more favourable than the final trial decision, which the respondent failed to accept.

The court exercised its discretion to award the applicant costs on a full recovery basis in the amount of $30,392.

On a family law interim motion, the applicant sought expert-retention orders, appraisal and disclosure relief, a declaration that an adult child remained dependent, increased temporary spousal and child support based on imputed income, retroactive support, and reimbursement for special and extraordinary expenses.

The court held that the agreed expert and appraisal-related relief resolved part of the motion, but declined to determine contested support issues on the interim record.

Relying on the limited function of temporary support motions and the adequacy of an existing holding order, the court found that imputation of income, retroactivity, special expense contribution, and the adult child's dependency status required fuller tested evidence at trial.

The motion was dismissed except for relief already agreed to.

The applicant mother and respondent father separated after a nine-year marriage.

The mother sought sole decision-making authority, child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making authority due to the father's coercive and controlling behaviour and the parties' inability to communicate.

The father was granted parenting time on alternating weekends and specified weekdays.

The court dismissed the father's claim to impute income to the mother, ordering child and spousal support based on the parties' actual incomes.

The father was ordered to pay spousal support for 10 years at the mid-range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, an equalization payment of $213,870.11, and post-separation adjustments.

In a child protection proceeding, the father sought a temporary order returning the child to a 50/50 shared parenting regime.

The children's aid society and the mother opposed, seeking to confirm an existing order placing the child in the mother's care with supervised access for the father.

The court found that returning the child to the father's care was not in the child's best interests due to unresolved concerns regarding the father's alleged drug use, the presence of inappropriate individuals at his residence, and his behavior during access visits.

The court ordered that the child remain in the mother's care subject to society supervision.

The parties brought a motion for directions to determine whether property excluded under their cohabitation agreement could be traced into other assets and remain excluded from equalization.

The applicant argued that the agreement did not explicitly provide for tracing, while the respondent argued that the creation of a new category of excluded property implicitly included tracing rights.

The court applied principles of contractual interpretation and examined the factual matrix, concluding that the mutual and objective intention of the parties was to exclude pre-marriage property and any property traced from it.

The court also ruled on the admissibility of affidavits sworn by the respondent's former counsel and a law clerk.

The children's aid society brought a motion for temporary care and custody of an infant who presented at the hospital with unexplained brain and retinal haemorrhages.

The parents claimed the injuries resulted from a fall off a couch, but medical professionals suspected non-accidental trauma.

The society apprehended the child after the parents failed to maintain a 24-hour supervision safety plan.

The court applied the unexplained injury principle and found reasonable grounds to believe the child was at risk of harm and could not be adequately protected by a supervision order.

The child was ordered to remain in the society's care pending trial, with access granted to the parents.

Following a successful appeal by the respondent regarding the normal retirement age used to value the applicant's pension, the matter was remitted to the Superior Court to recalculate the equalization payment.

The court adopted the applicant's expert valuation of the pension at age 60, finding the experts' preliminary values were less than $1,000 apart.

The court strongly criticized the respondent for unnecessarily prolonging the litigation and failing to comply with previous court orders.

The respondent was ordered to pay the outstanding equalization payment and costs, failing which the amounts would be transferred directly from his investment accounts or pension.

The applicant mother brought a Motion to Change a 2016 final order regarding parenting time, and the respondent father sought sole decision-making and enforcement of financial terms.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the parties' de facto shared parenting arrangement prior to the mother's 2019 mental health crisis.

The court ordered a week-on/week-off shared parenting schedule, finding it in the children's best interests despite high conflict and allegations of family violence.

Child support arrears were fixed at zero due to the shared parenting arrangement and similar incomes.

The mother was also ordered to fulfill her outstanding equalization obligations by transferring pension funds and paying cash, failing which the matrimonial home must be sold.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a summary judgment motion seeking a finding that the child, K.C.E.F., was in need of protection and an order for Extended Society Care for adoption by kin caregivers.

The mother, who had a history of mental health and parenting capacity issues, did not participate in the motion, and the father was in default.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, determined the child was in need of protection, and granted Extended Society Care, noting the child's Indigenous heritage and the kin caregivers' willingness to support it.

The court also clarified its obligation to set specific access terms, rather than delegating discretion to the Society or caregivers.

The Applicant sought an order for the sale of a property in which she held a 50% interest via a trust agreement, and an adjustment of temporary child support.

The Respondent filed a cross-motion seeking to reduce/expunge child support arrears and declare the property solely his, attempting to set aside the trust agreement.

The court ordered the sale of the property, dismissing the Respondent's request to invalidate the trust agreement due to lack of evidence.

The court imputed income to the Respondent at a higher level due to insufficient financial disclosure and adjusted child support accordingly, including a set-off amount.

The Respondent's request to expunge child support arrears was dismissed due to his unilateral cessation of payments.

The applicant, Mr. McDonald, brought a motion seeking an updated parenting assessment or, alternatively, a Voice of the Child Report.

The respondent, Ms. McMullen, sought to dismiss the motion.

The court dismissed Mr. McDonald's motion, finding that neither an assessment nor a Voice of the Child Report was necessary for the underlying Motion to Change, which primarily concerned the parents' inability to co-parent rather than clinical issues or parenting capacity.

The court also noted the applicant's outstanding unpaid costs awards from previous arbitrations.

This endorsement concerns a costs award following an urgent motion heard on September 2, 2020.

The applicant, who was the more successful party on the motion, sought costs on a full recovery basis of $25,872.48.

The respondent argued these costs were excessive and proposed $3,000.

The court, applying the Family Law Rules on costs, found the applicant's claimed legal fees to be excessive for a short motion.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $4,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements to the applicant.