Zonelle Webb

This Ontario Court of Justice decision addresses a motion concerning parenting time between J.N. (Father) and A.H. (Mother) for their toddler child born in 2023.

The court considered the best interests of the child under the Children's Law Reform Act, focusing on parenting time allocation amidst allegations of family violence and criminal charges against both parents.

The Father sought progressively increasing unsupervised parenting time, supported by supervised visits through Aboriginal Legal Services.

The court emphasized the child’s cultural heritage, the importance of both parents’ involvement, and the need for a conflict-free environment.

The decision orders a staged increase in parenting time with conditions including no hair cutting by the Father, virtual home inspection by Aboriginal Legal Services, and child-focused communication between parents.

This is a costs endorsement following a one-day trial where the father's motion to change child support was partially successful.

The mother, Dollen Kerr, sought full recovery costs of $14,435.75.

The court applied principles of reasonableness and proportionality, considering the parties' conduct, offers to settle, and the dominant issues at trial.

The mother was deemed the more successful party overall, particularly on the arrears issue, but her costs claim was high, and she failed to make a formal offer.

The father was found unreasonable for failing to pay child support for many years.

The court awarded the mother $5,000 in costs, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable at $50 per month, with an acceleration clause for late payments.

The respondent father brought a motion to change child support terms and rescind arrears from a 2008 order, citing a material change in circumstances due to a back injury and inability to earn the imputed income.

The applicant mother opposed, arguing the father had consistently avoided his support obligations.

The court found a material change in circumstances from June 10, 2021 (date of formal notice), but imputed an annual income of $18,000 to the father due to his intentional underemployment and failure to follow medical advice or seek retraining.

The court dismissed the father's request to rescind arrears, citing his blameworthy conduct and the stringent test for rescission, but allowed him to pay arrears at a reduced monthly rate.