Victoria Starr

The applicant father sought an order restraining the respondent mother from removing their six-year-old child from Ontario.

The respondent mother sought permission to temporarily relocate the child from Oakville to Astana, Kazakhstan from September 2017 to March 2018 to reside with her partner, a professional hockey player.

The court granted the mother's request, permitting the temporary relocation on the same terms and conditions as a previously agreed order permitting relocation to China.

The court found that the separation agreement explicitly permitted the mother to relocate with the child, that the father had recently consented to similar terms, and that the mother's proposed arrangements adequately addressed concerns regarding education, health care, and security.

The respondent father brought a motion to terminate his child support obligation for two adult children.

The applicant mother brought a cross-motion for recalculation of child support from May 2015 onwards.

The court terminated the father's obligation for both children effective December 31, 2016, finding that both had ceased to qualify as children of the marriage under the applicable statutory definitions.

The court granted the mother's claim for recalculation of support for the period prior to termination, finding she had standing to pursue the claim as it was originally pleaded when both children were entitled to support.

A costs decision arising from a motion to change child and spousal support provisions in a separation agreement.

The parties settled all substantive issues by minutes of settlement dated April 13, 2017, but disputed costs.

The applicant sought costs on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $22,096.13, claiming the respondent acted unreasonably.

The respondent sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $12,091, claiming the applicant's unreasonable conduct increased legal expenses.

The court found the applicant acted unreasonably by insisting on immediate support adjustments based on speculative income projections before year-end disclosure was available, and by failing to address the respondent's requests for adjustment of 2015 child support.

The court awarded costs to the respondent in the amount of $9,000, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

Application for child support and contribution towards section 7 expenses under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act.

The applicant sought to impute income to the respondent and establish child support obligations.

The court found the respondent intentionally underemployed and imputed an annual income of $34,700, resulting in monthly child support of $300.

The court also ordered the respondent to contribute 43.8% of child care expenses ($121.76 monthly) but dismissed claims for babysitting and extended health/dental premiums due to insufficient evidence.

A costs decision following urgent motions regarding custody and access to a 12-year-old child.

The mother sought an order for the child's immediate return to her care after the father unilaterally withheld the child during summer vacation.

The father brought a cross-motion seeking custody and primary residence.

The court granted the mother's motion, ordering the child's return to her care and awarding her sole custody with restricted access to the father.

The costs decision addresses whether the mother should recover her legal costs or whether the father's conduct warrants a costs award in his favour.

This is an evidentiary ruling in a custody and mobility trial.

The court determined the admissibility of out-of-court statements made to an Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) clinician by persons who did not testify at trial.

The court held that such statements are presumptively admissible as original evidence unless formally challenged by a party serving and filing a statement of dispute.

The court distinguished between OCL clinician reports under section 112 of the Courts of Justice Act and expert assessor reports under section 30 of the Children's Law Reform Act, finding that the legislative framework supports different treatment of hearsay in each context.

A motion to change brought by the father seeking retroactive variation of child support obligations and rescission of arrears totalling over $205,000.

The mother had filed a Writ of Seizure and Sale to enforce arrears under a separation agreement dated February 19, 2008.

The father claimed he had a verbal agreement with the mother to pay what he could afford following his job loss in 2009, and sought retroactive adjustment of support to accord with the Child Support Guidelines.

The court found a change in circumstances but granted only partial relief, reducing child support arrears while rescinding all interest as a penalty clause.

The court also partially rescinded spousal support arrears and established a framework for future disclosure and section 7 expense sharing.

An application to extend a youth's committal to a secure treatment program at Syl Apps Youth Centre for an additional three months was dismissed.

The applicant sought to extend the committal based on five statutory criteria under the Child and Family Services Act.

While the youth conceded that he had a mental disorder and was receiving appropriate treatment, the court found that the applicant failed to establish that it was likely the youth would cause or attempt to cause serious bodily harm to himself or others.

The court distinguished between minor assaults and the serious bodily harm required to justify continued detention under the extraordinary measures provision of the Act.

A stepfather sought to adopt a six-year-old child and brought a motion to dispense with notice to the biological father of an application to dispense with the biological father's consent to the adoption.

The biological father had minimal involvement with the child, had been "incommunicado" since 2013, and his whereabouts were unknown.

The court found that the applicant had not made reasonable efforts to locate the biological father or provide notice, and adjourned the motion and application for further evidence.

The court provided comprehensive guidance on what constitutes reasonable efforts to locate a party in adoption proceedings.

The court determined whether three children are Indian or native persons under the Child and Family Services Act.

The children's aid society argued the children were neither Indian nor native, while the mother sought a declaration that they were Indian with the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte as their band.

The court found that the children are entitled to be registered as Indians under the Indian Act through their maternal lineage, tracing entitlement through their great-great-grandfather (R.M.), great-grandmother (E.B.), grandfather (R.W.), and mother (M.M.).

The court identified the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte – Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory as the children's band.

The court heard two motions brought by respondent parents in a child protection proceeding.

The respondent mother sought a declaration that she and three youngest children are Native and/or eligible for status as Indians under the Child and Family Services Act, and requested that the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte be served and permitted to participate in proceedings.

The respondent father D.M.'s motion was dismissed as he did not appear.

The court adjourned the mother's motion to May 6, 2016, and made orders regarding service on the Band, participation at hearings, and case management to address delays caused by the parties' conduct and the voluminous materials filed.

A motion brought by the Children's Aid Society to suspend direct access between a seven-year-old child in care and his mother, and to restrict access to written communication only.

The child had experienced significant trauma from domestic violence and parental substance abuse.

Following apprehension, the child exhibited severe behavioral and emotional dysregulation, with escalations occurring before and after access visits with his mother.

The court found that the child's circumstances had changed dramatically since the initial temporary access order, and that direct access was contributing to his crisis.

The motion was granted, suspending direct access and permitting only written correspondence screened by the society.

The applicant mother brought two motions to change: (1) to terminate or order supervised access to the respondent father, and (2) to vary child support.

The father had been convicted of sexual assault of the mother and had a history of emotional and verbal abuse toward both the mother and children.

The court found a material change in circumstances warranting variation of access from unsupervised to supervised at a designated access centre.

The court also found the father's evidence regarding income unreliable and increased child support to the guideline table amount based on his 2014 income.

The court imposed restrictions on the father's ability to bring future motions without leave of court.

Following a six-day trial regarding custody and access, the respondent mother sought costs of $75,000.

The court found the mother was substantially more successful, having been awarded sole custody and most of her proposed parenting plan.

The applicant father's conduct was found to be unreasonable and cost-generating, though it did not amount to bad faith.

The court awarded the mother costs of $37,901.40 on a partial indemnity basis, after making adjustments for divided success on some issues and calculation errors in her bill of costs.

The court declined to order the costs enforced through the Family Responsibility Office.

This is a costs decision following a six-day family law trial concerning custody and parenting time of a seven-year-old child.

The respondent mother sought costs of $75,000 (or alternatively $61,249.74) against the applicant father.

The court found the mother was substantially more successful on the primary issues of custody and parenting schedule, entitling her to costs on a partial indemnity basis.

However, the court reduced the award to reflect the father's successes on certain issues and the mother's own conduct deficiencies, including her failure to engage in meaningful settlement discussions and her service of non-severable settlement offers containing extraneous terms.

The father's conduct, while unreasonable and cost-generating, did not amount to bad faith.

The court awarded costs of $37,901.40, payable by March 31, 2016, with post-judgment interest at 2% per annum.

This is a costs decision in a family law matter involving custody, access, and child support.

The respondent sought sole custody of the parties' son and child support, and was substantially successful.

The applicant sought physical access and an order preventing disparagement, and was unsuccessful.

The court awarded costs to the respondent but at a reduced amount (45% of claimed costs) to balance the objectives of indemnification, settlement promotion, and recognition of the applicant's reasonable litigation conduct and early settlement efforts.

This is a decision on costs arising from three motions in a family law matter concerning custody and access of a child.

The applicant sought to change the primary residence of the parties' son from the mother to the father, while the mother sought to modify the father's access and require family counselling.

The court dismissed both motions heard on August 31, 2015, finding no compelling reasons for an immediate change to the status quo pending trial.

The court also addressed costs of an urgent motion heard on July 10, 2015, which the mother brought due to the father's misleading conduct regarding the resumption of access.

The court found the father's conduct amounted to bad faith and awarded the mother costs on a full recovery basis for the July 10 motion, while dismissing both parties' costs claims for the August 31 motions.

Application by Syl Apps Youth Centre and Dr. Rod Evans for a 180-day extension of secure treatment commitment for a 17-year-old with complex mental health diagnoses and severe self-harming behaviors.

The respondent opposed the extension, arguing that no appropriate plan for care upon release had been established.

The court granted the extension, finding that while the plan lacked specificity and detail, it was reasonable given the circumstances, including the child's complex needs, limited community resources, and the strong planning process and contingency plans in place.

A confirmation hearing under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, 2002 regarding a provisional order made by the Stratford Court in England for child support.

The respondent father, residing in Ontario, had ceased paying child support for his daughter living in England.

The court confirmed the father's biological relationship to the child and his duty to support her.

The court imputed income to the father at $67,656 annually based on evidence that he was intentionally underemployed as a Master Electrician, despite being capable of earning the fair wage rate for electricians.

The court ordered monthly child support of $618 and fixed arrears at $16,068, payable by November 12, 2015.

The issue of nursery expenses was adjourned pending additional information from the designated authority.

The father brought a motion to change the primary residence of the parties' teenage son and to obtain specified access pending trial.

The mother opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion to modify the father's access and require family counselling before access resumed.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that the long-standing status quo of the child residing primarily with the mother should be maintained pending trial.

The court held that there were no compelling reasons to disturb the status quo, particularly given the untested nature of competing expert reports on parental alienation and the proximity of trial.