William J. Doran

The applicant brought a motion seeking an order to deal with the proceeds of sale from the jointly-owned matrimonial home, specifically requesting a substantial holdback from the respondent's share, primarily for prospective lump sum spousal support, as well as child support arrears and post-separation adjustments.

The parties had already agreed on an equalization payment.

The court dismissed the request for a holdback related to prospective lump sum spousal support, finding insufficient evidence to justify such an award, but ordered a $35,000 holdback for post-separation adjustments, child support arrears, and spousal support arrears.

The parties brought cross-motions regarding interim parenting time for their three children.

The court previously restricted the respondent father's parenting time due to his unvaccinated status, but the Divisional Court overturned this restriction.

The court balanced the children's need for a meaningful relationship with their father against the mother's historical role as primary caregiver and allegations of domestic violence.

The court ordered an expanded interim parenting schedule for the father, including alternating weekends and mid-week visits, totaling approximately 38 hours per week.

The applicant sought to terminate his spousal support obligation retroactively to January 1, 2018, and prospectively.

The respondent sought payment of a $35,000 lump sum and significant periodic arrears.

The court found the applicant had engaged in financial nondisclosure regarding a trust fund, which impeded the assessment of his means.

The court terminated spousal support effective April 1, 2022, based on medical evidence of the applicant's inability to work, but ordered him to pay $97,536 in total arrears.

The applicant's motion for contempt against the respondent for late financial disclosure was dismissed, as the court exercised its discretion to decline a contempt finding due to extenuating circumstances.

This endorsement addresses costs following motions for parenting orders, including decision-making responsibility for a child's Covid-19 vaccination and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The applicant mother was largely successful on the underlying motions, having been granted primary care, decision-making responsibility for the Covid-19 vaccination, and permission to move from the matrimonial home with the children.

The mother sought $5,000 in costs, while the father requested each party bear their own costs.

The court found the mother was more successful and acted reasonably, and awarded her $3,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and taxes, to be paid by the father.

The court also confirmed that a costs order can be made even if the underlying judgment is subject to appeal.

The applicant mother and respondent father brought cross-motions concerning decision-making responsibility for their children, specifically regarding COVID-19 vaccination, parenting time, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility for the children's COVID-19 vaccination, finding it to be in the children's best interests based on public health guidance.

The mother was also granted primary care of the children and permission to move from the matrimonial home with the children.

The father's parenting time was restricted with conditions related to COVID-19 testing and exposure.

Both parties' claims for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home were dismissed, with a temporary arrangement allowing the mother and children to move out while the father remained responsible for home expenses.

The applicant sought a determination of the respondent's income for child support and section 7 expenses.

The respondent, a sole shareholder of two corporations, claimed an income of $34,000 while declaring expenses of $86,000.

The court found the respondent's financial disclosure unreliable and that he was underreporting his income by charging personal expenses to his corporations.

Relying on sections 19, 22, and 23 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, the court imputed the respondent's annual income at $86,000.

The respondent was ordered to pay ongoing child support based on the imputed income and $5,641 in net arrears for child support, section 7 expenses, and erroneously claimed child tax benefits.

The moving party father brought a motion for an interim order to vary a final order, seeking expanded and unsupervised access to his five-year-old child.

The responding party mother opposed the motion, citing concerns about the father's past behaviour and fears of abduction to the United States or Nigeria.

The court found a material change in circumstances, noting the child's age and the successful completion of supervised visits.

The court granted graduated unsupervised access to take place in London, Ontario, but declined to allow the child to travel to the United States at this time.

The applicant and respondent, former romantic partners, brought cross-motions regarding interim custody, access, and child support for their child, Bryce.

The applicant sought an order confirming primary care and child support based on the respondent's stated income of $76,703.00.

The respondent sought a shared parenting regime with equal time and child support reflecting that arrangement.

The court found it could not resolve the factual disputes regarding the historical status quo of parenting time due to untested evidence.

Prioritizing the child's best interests and maximizing meaningful contact with both parents, the court ordered joint custody, with the child's primary residence remaining with the applicant.

The respondent was granted extended access, including alternating weekends from Friday after school to Monday before school, and every Wednesday after school to Thursday before school.

Child support was ordered at $697/month based on the respondent's income.

No costs were awarded due to the mixed result.

The respondent (mother) brought a motion seeking an order for her son C. to continue spending half his time with her, for C. and his mother to attend counselling, and for a police assistance order.

The applicant (father) had allowed C., then age 10, to decide his own custodial care, leading to C.'s estrangement from his mother.

The court found the father's conduct unreasonable, noting he abdicated parental responsibility and breached a separation agreement.

While acknowledging C.'s wishes, the court determined they were influenced and not in his best interests.

The court ordered defined interim access for C. with the mother and granted the mother sole authority to arrange counselling for C. and herself to rebuild their relationship, with costs shared.

The request for a police assistance order was adjourned.

In a child protection proceeding, the society brought a motion under s. 74(3) of the Child and Family Services Act seeking production of a psychological assessment report prepared regarding a parent.

The parent had initially consented to the assessment but later withdrew consent for the society to obtain the report.

The court held that the statutory threshold for production—whether the record may be relevant to the proceeding—was not onerous and was met because the report was prepared specifically to assess the parent’s mental health and its impact on parenting.

The parent filed no evidence opposing production or supporting redactions.

The court ordered the assessor to produce the report and permitted disclosure to counsel, subject to statutory confidentiality restrictions.