Baxter v Beharry 2015 Carswell Ont 182. This decision, written by Justice Sherr of the Ontario Court of Justice, reviews the issue of when child support arrears should and should not be rescinded. The father had evaded his child support obligations and been consistently in arrears since the initial order was made in 2000,
Read more
L.(N.) v M. (R.R.) 2016 ONSC 809: In this case, the police refused to enforce a court order to deliver a child, now over the age of 16, to his father, when the child was refusing to have contact with the father. The Chief of Police was made a party to the motion.
Section 30 of the Children’s Law Reform Act allows a judge to order a custody and access assessment in certain circumstances. As you will see in the discussion below, section 30 assessments are somewhat different than assessments conducted by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.
Section 30 assessment orders are not routine;
M.H.S. v S.M.G.T. 2015 CarswellBC 2351
In this case, the father of twins wrongfully removed them from Mexico to British Columbia. One twin has autism. When the mother brought an application under the Hague Convention for the return of the children, the father argued that they should not be returned to Mexico because the child with autism could not receive appropriate treatment there for his condition.
Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton v K.R. (Mother) 2014CarswellOnt 14930: The one-year-old child at the centre of this case had been in the care of the CAS because the mother was not able to care for her. The mother had a number of serious challenges including mental health issues,
In the case of, Boudreau v Boudreau 2014 Carswell Sask 665, Mr. and Mrs. Boudreau were married in Nova Scotia and lived there until they separated. They had one child together, and the wife’s child from a previous relationship also lived with them and was adopted by Mr.
In Jackson v Mayerle (2016 ONSC 1556), Justice Pazaratz has written another colourful decision, this time in a case where the mother refused to accept a number of offers to settle presented by the father and, after a 36-day trial in which the father was successful on all substantive issues,
In Manchanda v Thethi 2016 ONSC 3776, Justice Myers begins his decision in this case about financial disclosure by asking: “When is enough, enough?” It is easy to see why he posed this question, as there had been more than 70 requests for disclosure, almost all of them made by the applicant mother,
Hokhold v Gerbrandt 2015 BCCA 268 is a British Columbia case, so it is not binding on Ontario cases. As well the B.C. Family Law Act contains a number of provisions that are different from those in Ontario’s legislation. Nonetheless, the case is interesting because the court identifies financial bullying as family violence sufficient to impact the parenting arrangements for the children.
Godard v Godard 2015 ONCA 568 tackles the question of how hard a custodial parent is expected to work to encourage a child to have access with the other parent. Here, there were two children, one living with each parent. The father brought a contempt motion against the mother in which he alleged that he had been deprived of his weekend access for 6 months.
