Aron David

Child protection summary judgment motion regarding two children (ages 14 and 11).

The society sought findings that both children were in need of protection pursuant to subclauses 74(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and clause 74(2)(h) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, due to risk of physical and emotional harm arising from the mother's volatility, pattern of neglect, transience, mental health concerns, and failure to cooperate with the society.

The court found no genuine issue requiring trial, granted summary judgment, and ordered the older child placed with his biological father under supervision and the younger child in interim society care, both for six months.

Access with the mother and stepfather was ordered in the society's discretion with strict conditions including supervision and a letter of expectations.

The mother brought a motion to change child support and parenting time, seeking to impute a higher income to the father and claim retroactive support and section 7 expenses.

The father brought a cross-motion to change parenting time and sought to pay child support based on a lower income.

The court found a material change in circumstances for both parenting time and child support.

The father's income was imputed significantly higher than he claimed, and retroactive support was ordered from January 1, 2022, due to his blameworthy conduct in failing to disclose income.

A structured, gradually increasing parenting time schedule was ordered for the father, removing the mother's previous discretion.

The parties brought motions to change child support for their 20-year-old daughter.

The father sought to terminate support as of June 30, 2022, when the daughter completed high school and took a 14-month gap year.

The mother opposed this and sought a retroactive increase in child support from January 1, 2013.

The court found the daughter was not entitled to support during her gap year (July 1, 2022, to August 31, 2023) but revived support from September 1, 2023, when she returned to school.

The court found a material change in the father's income and, due to his blameworthy conduct (failure to disclose and comply with orders), ordered retroactive child support from January 1, 2018, imputing his income.

The father was ordered to pay additional arrears and increased ongoing child support.

The maternal grandmother brought a motion to be added as a party to a child protection proceeding under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The child had been in the care of the Children's Aid Society for approximately 33 months, exceeding the statutory 24-month time limit.

The court dismissed the grandmother's motion, finding that adding her as a party would cause undue delay in proceedings that had already exceeded statutory time limits, and that her proposed plan was not in the best interests of the child.

The child had expressed stress during visits with the grandmother and had formed strong emotional attachments to his foster family.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking the immediate return of her five-year-old daughter from the respondent father, who had unilaterally taken the child to Michigan, and an order for no face-to-face access.

Both parents had previously engaged in self-help by unilaterally breaching a consent order regarding custody and access during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found both parents guilty of ignoring the consent order and exercising self-help, emphasizing the paramountcy of the child's best interests.

The court ordered the child's return to the applicant within eight days, granted the respondent father future parenting time within Ontario conditional on depositing his passport, and directed a case conference for further access issues.

A family law trial concerning access to two young children and child support obligations.

The father sought expanded access from six hours weekly to overnight access on alternate weekends, while the mother opposed overnight access and sought restrictions on the father's partner's presence during visits.

The court granted a phased expansion of access, initially restricting the father's partner's presence but allowing it to commence in September 2019.

On child support, the court imputed income of $45,000 annually to the father based on his employment history and lifestyle evidence, rejecting his claims of unemployment and finding intentional underemployment.

The court ordered child support retroactive to the date of separation and contributions toward extraordinary extracurricular expenses.

The respondent father brought a motion to change child support orders and sought a paternity test, alleging he was not the biological parent of the child.

The mother consented to the paternity test, which confirmed the father's biological parentage.

The father sought to reduce child support and arrears based on claims of changed circumstances, including lower income, loss of driver's license, job loss, and medical issues.

The court found the father's evidence not credible, noting his financial disclosure was unreliable and his circumstances were substantially similar to those presented in a previous motion to change dismissed in 2010.

The court dismissed the motion to change and found the father had not met his onus to prove a material change in circumstances.

Two competing motions to change a final custody and access order.

The father sought specified unsupervised access to two children; the mother sought supervised access, change from joint to sole custody, and child support.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on escalating parental conflict, the father's campaign to discredit the mother's parenting, and the mother's de facto assumption of sole custodial responsibilities.

The court varied the joint custody order to sole custody to the mother, expanded the father's access to the younger child to unsupervised time, and maintained supervised access to the older child with a graduated transition plan.

Child support was affirmed based on the father's disclosed income.

Two competing motions to change a final custody and access order.

The father sought specified unsupervised access to two children; the mother sought supervised access, change from joint to sole custody, and child support.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on escalating parental conflict, the father's campaign to discredit the mother's parenting, and the mother's de facto assumption of sole custodial responsibilities.

The court varied the joint custody order to sole custody to the mother, expanded the father's access to the younger child to unsupervised time, and maintained supervised access to the older child with a graduated transition plan.

Child support was affirmed based on the father's disclosed income.