Family and Matrimonial Law

This decision concerns a high-conflict parenting dispute between Carla Patricia Ferreira Da Silva and Ramon Arturo Gomez Quevedo regarding their three-year-old son, Rafael.

The court addresses the impact of the father's changed work schedule on the existing equal parenting arrangement and the mother's request to reduce the father's time and obtain sole decision-making.

The court emphasizes the importance of the status quo, the best interests of the child, and the need for flexibility and cooperation between parents.

A temporary order is made maintaining equal parenting time, with adjustments to accommodate the father's new employment, and joint decision-making is preserved.

The applicant mother filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging that the society did not give her a chance to be heard.

The application stated that her daughter was kidnapped and she was extorted, but provided no other details or allegations against the society.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application as it lacked the required details and did not contain allegations against the respondent, making it ineligible for review.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the respondent adoption agency's decision to remove two children placed with the applicant for international adoption.

The Board found the application eligible for review as it was filed within the 10-day statutory timeframe under section 192 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Board issued directions for a preliminary hearing and noted the statutory prohibition against removing the children pending the review.

The applicant filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, complaining about an unsolicited phone call from an employee of the respondent society.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding it was not eligible for review.

The Board held that the applicant did not seek or receive a service from the society as required by the Act, as the complaint related entirely to a phone call she did not request.

The applicant, a maternal grandmother and kin caregiver, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding services received from the respondent children's aid society.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the matters raised were currently before the Superior Court of Justice in an ongoing child protection proceeding.

The Board found that the applicant's concerns, primarily regarding the children's access with extended family, were central issues before the court and not separate and different from the substantive issues in the court proceeding.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging that the respondent children's aid society breached her privacy by disclosing personal information during a child protection proceeding.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application without a hearing.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction under section 120(8)(a) because the issue arose in a matter currently before the court, and noted that jurisdiction over privacy breaches falls to the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario under Part X of the Act.

The applicant father filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the safety of his child in the mother's care.

The Board found that the issues raised were substantially the same as a previous application and were currently before the court in an ongoing child protection proceeding.

Additionally, requests for personal information about the mother and her partner fell under Part X of the CYFSA, which is outside the Board's jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society refused to proceed with his complaint and failed to follow its complaint review process.

The Board found that the applicant did not file his complaint to the society in the mandatory format required by Ontario Regulation 156/18.

Consequently, the Board lacked jurisdiction to review the matter and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a complaint against the respondent children's aid society under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging failures to hear her concerns regarding parenting time, counselling for her daughter, and a lack of timeliness and responsiveness.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over the parenting time issue as it was before the courts, and over the information disclosure issue.

The counselling issue was resolved prior to the hearing.

However, the Board found the society failed to adequately hear the applicant's concerns regarding the timeliness of measures relating to time with her children following her completion of treatment.

The society was ordered to provide written reasons to the applicant regarding how it considered her views.

The applicant filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, seeking review of a children's aid society's refusal to proceed with a complaint regarding redacted childhood records.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the applicant did not file a formal complaint in the format required by the Regulation.

Furthermore, the Board noted that issues related to personal information fall under the jurisdiction of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding complaints against the respondent children's aid society.

After failing to attend two scheduled pre-hearing videoconferences and subsequently emailing the Board to state she was cancelling the application, the Board dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant alleged that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to comply with two terms of a settlement agreement reached during a mediation.

The adjudicator found that the respondent failed to comply with the first term, as the revised closing letter provided to the applicant contained unnecessary prejudicial details that rendered it unfit for its intended purpose in family court.

However, the adjudicator found that the respondent complied with the second term by holding a meeting with an Equity, Diversity and Inclusion specialist to hear the applicant's concerns regarding the impact of Islamic culture on the investigation.

The adjudicator ordered the respondent to provide a newly revised closing letter with specific language.

The applicant grandparent sought a review of the respondent children's aid society's actions regarding her grandchildren, seeking their return to her care.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding it ineligible for review because the applicant was not seeking or receiving a service from the society, but rather complaining about the society's actions regarding the children.

The applicant alleged that the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with a settlement agreement reached during a pre-hearing.

The settlement required the respondent to answer specific questions regarding the steps taken to address the applicant's concerns about her children's safety and well-being.

After reviewing the respondent's written answers and hearing oral submissions, the adjudicator found that the respondent had sufficiently answered the questions and complied with the settlement agreement.

The application was closed as settled.

The respondent husband brought a motion to change to terminate his spousal support obligation due to retirement, confirm his 18-year-old son remained a child of the marriage, and reduce security for support.

The court found the husband's retirement at age 59 was voluntary, not medically necessary.

Spousal support was reduced from $1,640 to $867 per month and time-limited to terminate on September 31, 2025, based on the "without child" Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines formula.

The son was found to no longer be a child of the marriage as of July 1, 2023, due to enrolling in the army, terminating child support.

Security for spousal support was maintained until its termination date, while security for child support was terminated.

Costs were awarded to the husband on a full-recovery basis due to the applicant wife's non-response to the motion.

The Applicant, Valoris for Children and Adults of Prescott-Russell, brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a final order for extended society care for the child B.J.M.O., who had previously been found in need of protection.

The respondent parents opposed, arguing for a trial on disposition and access, proposing custody to kin or interim supervision.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial.

It ordered extended society care for the child, with access to parents at the Society's discretion (due to criminal no-contact conditions and a broken relationship) and sibling access as determined by the Society.

The decision emphasized the child's best interests, stability, and the unsuitability of other options.

The respondent moved for the sale of the matrimonial home, which the parties owned as joint tenants.

The applicant resisted the sale and sought exclusive possession, arguing that the sale would breach a prior court order and prejudice her equalization claim.

The court dismissed the applicant's arguments, finding that the prior order did not indefinitely bar the sale motion and that holding proceeds in trust mitigated any risk to equalization.

The court also determined the applicant could find alternative housing despite her less favorable financial position compared to the respondent.

The motion for sale was granted, and the applicant was ordered to pay costs.

Parents appealed a summary judgment order making their children Crown wards without access in a child protection proceeding.

The appeal challenged the motion judge’s conclusion that there were no genuine issues requiring a trial regarding whether Crown wardship was the least disruptive alternative in the children’s best interests under the Child and Family Services Act.

The court held that the evidentiary record revealed no material factual disputes, but rather disagreements about the interpretation of undisputed facts concerning the parents’ commitment and capacity to parent.

Given the statutory time limits on society wardship and the children’s need for permanence and stability, summary judgment was appropriate.

The appeal from the denial of post‑Crown wardship access was also dismissed because the parents failed to adduce evidence satisfying the statutory test requiring proof that access would be beneficial and would not impair adoption prospects.

The applicant mother brought a motion to set aside access terms agreed to in Minutes of Settlement and to suspend the respondent father's access to the parties' child until supervised access could be arranged.

Evidence included allegations of emotional instability, criminal charges, and a negative family assessment recommending sole custody to the mother with supervised access for the father.

The respondent father argued the settlement terms were binding and alleged misconduct by the mother, including attempts to interfere with his relationship with the child.

The court held that the best interests of the child required that access occur only in a supervised setting by a neutral third party.

The applicant's motion was granted and supervised access ordered.

Following a motion for contempt relating to denial of parenting access, the court determined the appropriate costs award under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The moving party obtained a finding of contempt for failure to comply with an access order for a limited period after a child protection investigation concluded, while the responding party successfully defended other contempt allegations relating to access denied during the investigation and missed telephone access.

The court found success on the motion to be divided and the matter to be of average complexity.

However, the respondent’s failure to comply with the court order without seeking a variation justified a costs consequence.

The respondent was ordered to pay partial indemnity costs to the moving party.