Arthur Clinton Brown

This costs endorsement followed a two-day trial where the applicant mother sought supervised parenting time with her children, and the respondent father sought non-contact orders.

The court at trial denied the mother's request for parenting time and granted the father's non-contact orders, with the mother receiving only limited information about the children.

The father sought $19,045 in costs, while the mother requested nominal costs.

The court found the father to be the successful party and awarded him $8,500 in costs, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

Payment of these costs was suspended until the earliest of the mother obtaining employment, receiving Ontario Disability Support Payments (ODSP), or being released from CAMH, acknowledging her current detention and limited financial resources.

The applicant mother, found not criminally responsible for attempting to kill her two young children while in a state of psychosis, sought supervised parenting time and information about the children.

The respondent father opposed, citing severe trauma to himself and the children, particularly the older child, and fears for their safety.

The court denied the mother's request for in-person or virtual parenting time, finding it premature and detrimental to the children's emotional and psychological safety and well-being given the extreme circumstances and the mother's lack of insight.

Parenting time was made contingent on the children and father receiving therapeutic treatment and professional guidance for reintroduction, a process expected to take at least two years.

The court granted the father's request for contact restrictions but ordered him to provide limited information (pictures, redacted report cards) to the mother via her brother.

The Applicant Mother and the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) brought motions for restraining orders against the Respondent Father under s. 46 of the Family Law Act.

The motions sought to restrain the father from coming within 500 metres of the mother's home and the children's locations, and from communicating with them.

The court reviewed the history of family violence, including the father's criminal charges and breaches of recognizance, and a period of attempted reconciliation.

The court accepted the children's expressed views and preferences, which indicated fear and distress regarding the father.

The court found that the father's repeated breaches constituted a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour, amounting to family violence, and that there were reasonable grounds to fear for the safety of the mother and children.

The motions were granted.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a temporary care and custody motion concerning two children, H. and Z., who were previously placed with the father, S.M., under a without prejudice order.

The Society and the father sought to make this order with prejudice.

The mother, I.L., sought temporary care and custody of the children or increased access.

The court found that the mother had significant unaddressed mental health issues, was not engaging with recommended treatment, and posed a high risk of harm to the children, making supervision inadequate.

The court determined that the children could be adequately protected in the father's care, who had cooperated with the Society and provided a stable environment.

The court dismissed the mother's request and ordered that the previous temporary order placing the children with the father, subject to Society supervision, be made with prejudice.

A family law trial concerning custody, access, and child support for two children following the separation of the parents.

The mother sought custody, retroactive child support from January 2014, and permission to travel with the children outside Canada.

The father sought joint custody and offered to pay support based on declared income of $12,000 annually.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother with consultation requirements for major decisions, established an access schedule for the younger child with the father, and determined that the father's guideline income included non-taxable OSAP grants, resulting in significantly higher imputed income than claimed.

Retroactive support was ordered from November 2015 with arrears payable at $100 monthly.

This is a status review application under the Child and Family Services Act concerning a child in care of the Children's Aid Society.

The child was placed in care due to parental drug addiction and related neglect.

The Society sought a final order of crown wardship without access for adoption purposes.

Both parents sought return of the child under supervision orders, with access as an alternative.

The court found that both parents had uncontrolled long-standing drug addictions, engaged in a dysfunctional and violent relationship, and lacked the capacity to provide adequate care.

The father exhibited severe behavioral and emotional control issues.

The court determined that crown wardship without access was in the child's best interests, as neither parent could provide the stability and support the child required.

A child protection agency sought to reopen a trial after evidence had concluded and submissions had been made, but before judgment was rendered.

The agency wished to introduce a psychological assessment of the child conducted by an expert who had not testified during the trial.

The respondent mother opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the evidence could have been adduced during the agency's case-in-chief, that reopening would cause significant delay in a matter where timely permanency planning was critical, and that the timing of the motion suggested the agency only sought to introduce the evidence after confirming it would support their case.

The court found that allowing the motion would be unfair to the respondent and contrary to the child's best interests.

A protection application brought by the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto concerning a child (D.R.) born in 2004.

The child's parents, M.R. (mother) and C.R. (father), had not communicated since two months after the child's birth.

The society sought a finding that the child was in need of protection pursuant to clauses 37(2)(f) and (g) of the Child and Family Services Act, alleging that the mother had consistently failed to support the child's relationship with the father and had caused emotional harm through her actions.

The court found that the child was in need of protection due to emotional harm caused by the mother's interference with the father-child relationship and her rigid belief that the father had abused the child, despite investigations finding no evidence of abuse.

The court ordered that the child be placed in the father's care subject to society supervision for 12 months, with the mother's access to be at the society's discretion.

The court emphasized the need for therapeutic intervention with the mother to address her dysfunctional beliefs about the father.

A 12-day trial in a child protection application under the Child and Family Services Act concerning a child (B.F.D.) nearly three years old.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society sought a finding that the child was in need of protection and a disposition of crown wardship without access for purposes of adoption.

The father consented to both the protection finding and crown wardship.

The mother opposed the application and sought the child's return to her care, subject to a supervision order.

The court found the child was in need of protection under sections 37(2)(b) and (g) of the CFSA based on risk of physical and emotional harm.

The court made an order for crown wardship without access, finding that a supervision order would be ineffective given the mother's persistent non-compliance, uncooperative behavior, substance abuse, anger management issues, and lack of insight into the protection concerns.

A motion brought by counsel for the mother seeking to be removed as solicitor of record in a child protection proceeding scheduled for trial.

The mother's counsel sought removal due to financial hardship, as the mother had no capacity to pay further legal fees and did not qualify for legal aid.

The court dismissed the motion, balancing the hardship to counsel against the potential prejudice to the mother and the administration of justice.

The court found that the mother would be at a considerable disadvantage if forced to represent herself, particularly given the complexity of the case, the mother's limited English proficiency, and the fact that she would be facing experienced counsel for both the society and the father.

A child protection case in which the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a summary judgment motion seeking a declaration that a child (W.R.) was in need of protection and an order making the child a Crown ward for the purpose of adoption.

The respondent parents opposed the motion and presented alternative plans for the child's care.

The court found no genuine issue requiring trial and granted the Society's motion, making the child a Crown ward.

The court declined to grant access to the parents, finding that they had not met the statutory test for access to a Crown ward.

The applicant brought a motion to change an earlier child support order seeking increased child support retroactive to 2007 and contribution toward various special and extraordinary expenses under s. 7 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The court assessed the respondent’s income history and determined the presumptive table support amount, declining to reduce support during a voluntary paternity leave because the reduction in income resulted from a personal choice.

The court also considered claims for private school tuition, counselling, travel, and other expenses under s. 7.

Most claimed expenses were rejected as unnecessary or unreasonable given the parties’ means, though the respondent was ordered to contribute proportionately to certain public school and recreational expenses.

The support amount was varied effective January 1, 2012 but not retroactively to earlier years due to delay in advancing the motion.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a summary judgment motion seeking an order making a child a Crown ward.

The child had been apprehended in December 2009, placed with the mother in February 2011 under supervision, and re-apprehended in April 2011 after the mother violated multiple court-ordered conditions.

The mother sought to resume care; the father sought a custody order for the paternal grandmother in England.

The court found no genuine issue for trial and granted the motion, making the child a Crown ward with no access for the purpose of adoption.

The court found the mother's plan to resume care had no air of reality given her pattern of emotional instability, poor judgment, inability to comply with court orders, and failure to engage in meaningful counselling or supportive services.