William Sullivan

This is a costs endorsement following a trial on motions to change regarding child support.

The applicant (father) was ordered to pay child support of $1,050 per month and $20,000 for retroactive support.

The respondent (mother), acting in person, sought costs of $4,057.47, while the applicant sought costs of $7,859.

The court found the father acted in bad faith by misrepresenting his income at $80,000 when it was actually $180,000, failing to provide timely financial disclosure, and refusing to pay child support after the mother's motion was filed.

The court awarded the mother costs of $4,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, and dismissed the father's costs claim.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion seeking temporary care and custody of an infant (A.S.) under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

The society relied on a SCAN (Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect) report indicating suspected inflicted injuries, including a lip laceration and rib fracture.

The parents opposed the motion and sought return of the child to their care.

The court found that the society failed to establish reasonable grounds to believe the child was at risk of harm in the parents' care.

The court emphasized that the SCAN opinion, while one piece of evidence, could not be the sole basis for the society's belief about risk.

The court found the parents to be credible, caring, and cooperative, with no evidence of abuse or neglect.

The motion was dismissed and the child was ordered returned to the parents' care.

A child protection trial determining whether three children were in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act.

The Children's Aid Society sought a finding that the children had suffered physical harm inflicted by their parents through excessive corporal punishment, including beatings with belts, use of ginger root inserted anally as punishment, forced confinement to a garage, and threats.

The parents denied the allegations, claiming the children were influenced by the oldest child to fabricate abuse claims.

The court found the children credible and reliable, and determined that the parents had subjected the children to inappropriate and excessive physical discipline causing physical harm, warranting a protection finding.

The respondent mother brought a motion to change parenting and child support terms established in prior orders.

The parties had a joint custody arrangement with the child's primary residence with the father, and the mother was ordered to pay $211 per month in child support.

After the mother returned to Ontario in 2009, the parties agreed to an equal time-sharing arrangement in March 2010.

The mother sought retroactive support from the father, claiming he earned significantly more income than disclosed.

The father opposed retroactive support and proposed only ongoing support of $500 per month.

The court found the father had improperly diverted income through his corporation and unreasonably deducted expenses.

The court imputed income to both parties and ordered the father to pay $1,050 per month ongoing support and $20,000 in retroactive support, with the mother's arrears rescinded.

This is a child protection trial concerning a child (A.) born in 2010, nearly three years old at the time of trial.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto sought a crown wardship order with no access for purposes of adoption.

The mother opposed this and sought the child's return to her care subject to a supervision order.

The mother consented to a protection finding under section 37(2)(b)(i) of the Child and Family Services Act based on risk of physical harm.

The child had been apprehended twice: first in October 2010 when the mother experienced a mental health crisis, and second in March 2012 when the mother's mental health again deteriorated.

The court found that while the mother had made significant personal gains and her mental health was currently stable with psychiatric treatment, she had not made adequate gains in her parenting abilities.

The court determined that the child required a permanent, stable placement and ordered crown wardship with no access to facilitate adoption.

A temporary care and custody motion under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act concerning two children apprehended by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto.

The respondent mother sought the return of the younger child to her care under a supervision order.

The court applied the two-part test from section 51(3) of the Act and found that the society established reasonable grounds to believe the child would likely suffer harm if returned to the mother's care, and that the child could not be adequately protected by supervision terms alone.

The court ordered the child remain in the society's temporary care with restricted access provisions.