Virginia Leigh Workman

The Applicant sought an order extending the deadline to apply for an openness order under s. 196(1) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, relying on the court's parens patriae jurisdiction.

The motion was brought due to a procedural error where the application was served but not issued within the statutory 30-day limit.

The Children's Aid Society consented, while the Office of the Children's Lawyer did not oppose the exercise of parens patriae but required the legal test to be met.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no unintentional legislative gap in the Act and concluding that exercising parens patriae jurisdiction was not necessary to protect the child's best interests, as the child had already filed their own timely openness application.

The applicant brought an urgent motion seeking child support based on imputed income, a restraining order, and continued payment of household expenses.

The respondent sought an interim parenting schedule.

The court imputed income to the respondent for child support purposes, ordered the respondent to continue paying household expenses, and established a new parenting time schedule.

The request for a restraining order was denied due to insufficient evidence of reasonable grounds for fear.

This case involved cross-motions to change a final order concerning child support and Section 7 special and extraordinary expenses for the parties' two children.

The court determined the respondent's income and imputed income to the applicant for child support purposes.

It then calculated the parties' proportionate shares for the children's post-secondary education expenses, including the children's expected contributions and the treatment of personal expenses.

The decision also addressed the respondent's obligation to pay monthly child support, specifically for a child's "gap year" and for a child attending school away from home, providing detailed directions for retroactive calculation.

The respondent's request to terminate education expense obligations after four years post-high school was dismissed.

The parties, separated parents of three children, brought cross-motions concerning the temporary residence of their children and the partition and sale of their matrimonial home.

The court upheld the existing temporary residence arrangement, emphasizing the children's views and the ongoing work of the Children's Lawyer.

The court also ordered the immediate partition and sale of the matrimonial home, dismissing the respondent's concerns about market timing during COVID-19 and unresolved financial issues, finding no prejudice to property rights under the Family Law Act.

The applicant brought a motion to vary existing access orders and requested a police enforcement clause, seeking access in his home instead of the current in-and-out arrangement in the matrimonial home.

The matter was referred to a triage judge under the COVID-19 protocol to determine urgency.

The court found the matter was not urgent, as the children's safety was not at risk.

The judge emphasized that parents should prioritize the children's best interests, follow Health Canada safety protocols, and avoid litigation during the pandemic.

The applicant's past actions regarding COVID-19 recommendations raised legitimate concerns for the respondent.

The motion was dismissed as not urgent.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for the reinstatement of parenting time arrangements, alleging the respondent mother was denying access due to concerns related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court, acting as Triage Judge, reviewed the materials and determined that the motion was not urgent or an emergency under the Chief Justice's Notice regarding suspended court operations.

The court clarified that "urgent and emergency matters" in family law, particularly concerning the well-being of a child, were intended to mirror the language of the Hague Convention regarding wrongful removal or retention, and did not apply to general parenting time disputes.

The motion was dismissed, and the parties were encouraged to resolve the matter cooperatively.

Following a successful motion for temporary joint custody and shared parenting time, the applicant sought substantial indemnity for costs, fixed at $8,000.

The respondent proposed partial indemnity of $2,500, payable by deduction from any equalization payment.

The court, applying Rule 24, awarded partial indemnity costs of $2,500 to the applicant, payable forthwith by the respondent.

Following a motion to change a child support order, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The moving party had been successful in obtaining an order requiring the responding party to pay full table child support due to a reduction in parenting time exercised by the responding party, though she was unsuccessful on other arguments including the characterization of the prior order and certain claimed s. 7 expenses.

Applying Rules 18 and 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court assessed success, reasonableness of the parties’ positions, offers to settle, and the time reasonably attributable to the motion.

The court found that while both parties advanced some unreasonable positions, neither acted in bad faith.

Considering partial success and proportionality, the court awarded reduced costs to the moving party.

The applicant brought a motion to change a prior final order relating to child support and special expenses for three children.

The previous order required the respondent to pay 80% of the Child Support Guidelines table amount based on an expectation of extensive parenting time.

The court found a material change in circumstances because the respondent was exercising significantly less access than contemplated when the reduced support level was agreed upon.

Full table child support was ordered effective November 1, 2011 with further adjustment based on updated income figures.

Only limited section 7 expenses were allowed, including tutoring and orthodontic expenses, while most extracurricular activities were found not to qualify as extraordinary given the level of table support.

The applicant sought enforcement and security for spousal support obligations after the respondent repeatedly failed to comply with court-ordered financial disclosure and support payments in protracted family litigation.

The record demonstrated a pattern of nondisclosure, including failure to reveal income sources, motor vehicle accident claims, and billing practices, despite numerous prior orders requiring disclosure.

Relying on the court’s authority under the Courts of Justice Act and s. 34 of the Family Law Act, and applying principles from appellate authority governing vesting orders, the court found that the respondent’s conduct demonstrated that support obligations were unlikely to be complied with absent intrusive enforcement measures.

The court struck the respondent’s pleadings for non-compliance and granted a vesting and security order over the matrimonial home to secure spousal support.

Additional disclosure and enforcement orders were made, along with costs against the respondent.

Following a family law trial concerning parenting-related issues, the court was required to determine costs.

The respondent sought costs after succeeding on two of three issues, while the applicant argued each party should bear their own costs.

The court found that success was divided between the parties and that both had acted unreasonably at times during the litigation.

Given the mixed outcome and equal importance of the issues, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs and that no costs be awarded for the costs submissions.