Ysamin McGann

The respondent brought a motion challenging the Superior Court's jurisdiction to hear the applicant's claim for corollary relief under the Divorce Act, given a separation agreement previously filed in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The respondent subsequently withdrew the motion but still sought an order for mediation and costs.

The court determined that the applicant was the successful party, as the court did have jurisdiction to hear the corollary relief application.

The court declined to reserve costs to the trial judge and ordered the respondent to pay costs of $11,000 to the applicant.

The applicant sought to enforce a separation agreement, including child and spousal support arrears, and to impute income to the respondent for intentional underemployment.

The respondent sought to terminate spousal support and pay reduced child support.

The court found the respondent intentionally underemployed, imputed income to him, ordered payment of significant child and spousal support arrears, and s. 7 expense arrears.

The respondent's motion to terminate spousal support was dismissed, but ongoing spousal support was temporarily set at zero due to the priority of child support, with the issue to be determined at trial.

The court also addressed life insurance obligations and the division of RESP funds and Marant shares.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto applied for a secure treatment order under section 164 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act for the child SA, aged 13.

The mother supported the application, while the child and father opposed it.

The court first ruled that SA could not attend the hearing due to potential emotional harm.

After hearing evidence, including from a psychiatrist and social workers, the court found that all six criteria under section 164(1) for secure treatment were met: SA had a mental disorder, had caused or attempted serious bodily harm within 45 days, had a history of such harm/threats within 12 months, secure treatment would be effective, appropriate treatment was available at Syl Apps, and no less restrictive method was appropriate.

The court exercised its discretion to grant the order, committing SA to Kinark Child and Family Services, Syl Apps Youth Centre, for 180 days, emphasizing that this was the only way to provide hope for the child's healing given the exhaustion of all other less restrictive options.

This is a costs endorsement following a two-day trial concerning parenting and child support arrangements for a four-year-old child.

The respondent (mother) sought costs of $14,226.35, while the applicant (father) sought no costs award.

The court found that the mother was the successful party on the dominant issues (primary residence and parenting time) and was entitled to costs.

The mother had made two offers to settle, the second of which was severable and more favourable to the father on custody and support issues.

The court awarded costs of $10,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable at $275 per month commencing October 1, 2020.

Trial decision determining custody, parenting time, and child support for a four-year-old child whose parents reside in different municipalities.

The mother was awarded custody and primary residence.

The father was granted generous parenting time including three out of four weekends monthly and mid-week visits.

Child support was ordered based on imputed income, with a phased approach accounting for pandemic impacts.

The court found the mother to be the more credible witness and better positioned to make major decisions for the child, while acknowledging both parents' commitment and love for the child.

The applicant father sought an interim variation of a prior custody order, requesting primary residence of the two children (aged 8 and 10) from the respondent mother.

The father alleged neglect, poor school attendance, and failure to meet the children's basic needs by the mother, while demonstrating his own improved stability.

The court found a material change in circumstances and compelling reasons, primarily related to the children's stability and well-being, to warrant an interim change in primary residence to the father, despite the children's stated preference to remain with the mother.