A.W.J. Sullivan

This family law trial decision addresses parenting arrangements, decision-making responsibility, and child support arrears.

The applicant mother sought primary residence and sole decision-making due to a history of family violence.

The self-represented respondent father sought equal parenting.

The court acknowledged past family violence but found a significant reduction in risk and improved cooperation between the parties over the past four years.

Primary residence was granted to the mother, while decision-making for education and serious medical issues was ordered to be joint.

The father was ordered to pay ongoing child support and substantial arrears based on an imputed income, with a credit for past rent payments.

International travel with the children was permitted for both parents under specific conditions.

This trial decision addresses parental time and child support for a child born in 2015.

The applicant mother, who has been the primary caregiver, moved to Ottawa with the child.

The respondent father had minimal contact with the child, especially since the move.

The court established a progressive parental time schedule, beginning with supervised day visits in Ottawa, gradually increasing to unsupervised day visits, then overnight visits, and eventually longer periods in Toronto and potential international travel.

The court also ordered retroactive child support from July 2017 based on the father's actual income, calculating arrears, and adjusted the ongoing monthly child support.

The father's request for a reduction in child support for travel expenses was denied as premature.

This 3-day trial addressed decision-making, parenting schedule, and child support for the parties' 12-year-old son.

The court found the father (Respondent) engaged in manipulative, coercive, and emotionally harmful behavior, including making racist and misogynistic comments and involving the child in the litigation.

The mother (Applicant) was granted sole decision-making authority and primary residence.

The father's parenting time was restricted and ordered to be staged, conditional on his attendance at counselling programs addressing the emotional harm to children from domestic conflict and anti-black racist comments.

The court also calculated child support arrears owed by the mother to the father, and ordered ongoing child support from the father to the mother.

The respondent, Mr. Sterling, brought a motion to change a prior order regarding child support, section 7 expenses, and parenting time.

The applicant, Ms. Smith, opposed the motion.

The court dismissed Mr. Sterling's request to reduce child support, finding his financial disclosure inconsistent and lacking credibility, and ordered him to pay an additional $200 per month towards significant arrears.

The court clarified section 7 expenses, terminating old fixed amounts and establishing a new sharing mechanism for daycare and future agreed-upon activities.

The parenting schedule was revised by agreement of the parties.

The Children's Aid Society of the County of Dufferin brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order for extended care with access for the child S.R.W.D. The self-represented parents opposed, arguing genuine issues required a trial.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, emphasizing the child's need for permanency and the parents' failure to address long-standing concerns regarding substance use and parenting capacity despite extensive CASD support.

The child was placed in extended care with supervised access for the parents under specific conditions.

The applicant sought a temporary order to permit the relocation of the child, Cassidy Khan, to Orangeville, Ontario, from Brampton.

The respondent opposed the move, arguing it would disrupt the existing parenting schedule and reduce his time with the child.

The court, applying sections 24 and 39 of the Children's Law Reform Act, found that the relocation, driven by the applicant's need for stable and affordable housing, would not significantly impact the child's relationship with the respondent.

The court noted the parties' failure to formalize parenting arrangements despite the absence of major obstacles and approved a reconfigured parenting schedule that maintained the same number of overnights for the respondent.

The motion to permit relocation was granted, and the parties were ordered to negotiate a consent order for decision-making and a revised parenting schedule.

Motion to change a 2014 custody and access order.

The applicant father sought sole custody of two children and reduction in the mother's parenting time, citing material changes in circumstances including breakdown of co-parenting communication, the mother's distraction with new relationships, instability in housing and employment, and concerns about the quality of care provided.

The respondent mother opposed the motion and sought to maintain the original week-about schedule.

The court found a material change in circumstances and, applying the best interests of the child test, granted sole custody to the father while maintaining the mother's every-other-weekend and Wednesday evening access.

The court imposed detailed communication protocols and conditions on both parents' conduct.

The applicant brought a motion to change a child support order dated November 22, 2000, seeking to reduce arrears, terminate support, and adjust section 7 expenses.

The respondent opposed the motion and sought costs.

The court found a material change in circumstances but dismissed the applicant's request for retroactive income reassessment from 2017.

The court credited the applicant $6,000 for direct and in-kind payments, terminated monthly child support as of December 31, 2019, and ordered the applicant to pay a proportionate share of certain section 7 expenses.

Interest was reduced from 7% to 3.52% annually.

This is a child protection matter under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The court determined that two children were in need of protection and granted custody to their half-sister J.P. and her partner A.E. This decision addresses the form and terms of access between the mother G.P. and her two children.

The mother sought frequent unsupervised access with rapid expansion to overnight visits upon negative drug tests.

The custodial caregivers sought supervised access at their discretion until the mother addressed her addiction and mental health issues.

The court adopted a staged approach to access, beginning with semi-supervised visits in public locations and gradually expanding over time based on demonstrated consistency, sobriety, and cooperation between the parties.

Motion review of an emergency restraining order granted without notice on April 2, 2020.

The applicant sought to restrain the respondent from direct or indirect contact with her and their infant daughter, and from approaching their residence or workplace.

The respondent contested the order, denying allegations of abuse and arguing he had voluntarily left the home.

The court found evidence of emotional and aggressive behaviour, including the respondent's admission to breaking down a locked door.

The court granted a modified restraining order prohibiting direct contact and requiring communication through counsel, while establishing supervised access to the child through a third party facilitator.

The court also established a temporary parenting schedule pending a case conference.

The respondent brought a motion to change the final custody and access order from 2014, seeking to establish a fixed 50/50 summer parenting schedule for the child.

The applicant opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the respondent failed to establish a material change in circumstances required to vary the 2014 consent order.

The court determined that the parties had established a negotiation-based process for determining summer access that was consistent with the 2014 order and that this process, while sometimes difficult, had not negatively affected the child.

The court also found that the respondent was barred by action estoppel from relitigating the summer access issue, which had been addressed in prior proceedings through settlement negotiations.

The applicant brought an emergency motion seeking immediate resumption of parenting time with his son pursuant to a final consent order dated January 6, 2020.

The respondent had withheld the child following March Break 2020, citing COVID-19 health concerns.

The court found no specific evidence justifying breach of the existing parenting order and ordered the child's immediate return to the applicant's primary residence, with conditions requiring both parents to adhere to Ontario government health protocols during the pandemic.

Motion to change final custody and child support orders.

The respondent father sought to change the joint legal custody arrangement to split custody, adjust child support retroactively from September 2018, and modify the time-sharing schedule.

The applicant mother opposed the custody change but agreed to equal summer sharing and a material change in circumstances due to the father's job loss.

The court found no material change in circumstances warranting a change to the custody and access provisions, as both parents' needs were being adequately met despite communication difficulties.

The court did find a material change in the father's employment circumstances and adjusted child support retroactively from July 1, 2018, based on reduced income, and prospectively from June 1, 2019, based on new employment income.

A temporary care and custody motion under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act concerning four children with developmental, emotional, medical and educational needs.

The Children's Aid Society sought to maintain custody of the children after they were brought into care on December 18, 2019, due to protection concerns arising from the father's mental health crisis, controlling behaviour, and refusal to cooperate with services.

The mother, who had been subject to the father's domination, sought the return of the children.

The court found that while protection concerns existed, a supervision order placing the children with the mother was appropriate, provided she lived separately from the father and his contact with the children was supervised by the CAS.

This is a Hague Convention Application brought by the father seeking the return of three children to the United Kingdom.

The children were removed from the UK on August 25, 2018, by their mother without the father's knowledge or consent.

The application was commenced within one year of removal.

The court found that while the children's habitual residence was in the UK and the father held parental responsibility under UK law, he had not actively exercised custody rights at the time of removal.

The father was characterized as an access parent who maintained contact through visits and financial support but did not exercise day-to-day parental responsibility.

The mother was the primary caregiver and exercised custodial rights.

The application was dismissed as the father failed to meet the threshold requirement under Article 3(b) of the Hague Convention that custody rights be "actually exercised" at the time of removal.

Motion by the respondent mother to appoint the Office of the Children's Lawyer to represent the interests of her daughter in an ongoing child protection application.

The child has been the subject of a protection application since August 2016, with allegations of abuse by the father that have been investigated and found unsubstantiated by multiple professionals.

The matter involves high domestic conflict between the parents and is proceeding to trial.

The court appointed the Office of the Children's Lawyer to represent the child's interests, finding that legal representation is deemed desirable under section 78 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, given that the child is not permitted to be present at trial and the competing positions of the parents cannot adequately protect her interests.

The Children's Aid Society of Peel brought a motion to have the respondent mother declared a special party under the Family Law Rules and to appoint the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee as her representative.

The Society argued that the mother's mental health issues, evidenced by concerning statements made to her daughter during supervised access visits and to Society workers, demonstrated incapacity to participate in the child protection proceedings.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the mother's statements and beliefs were unusual and potentially harmful to her case, they did not constitute compelling evidence of incapacity to understand and appreciate the risks and consequences of her decisions or to participate in the proceedings.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a consent custody order dated July 7, 2016, seeking to extend sole custody to include educational decisions, modify the parenting schedule, and address alleged non-compliance with child tax benefits and daycare costs.

The respondent father initially opposed the motion but later amended his response to argue material change based on ongoing conflict and communication difficulties.

The court found no material change in circumstances warranting variation of the custody and access provisions, as most disputed issues arose during litigation rather than before.

However, the court found that daycare expenses constituted a material change and ordered the father to contribute proportionately to Section 7 daycare costs.

The parties consented to modifications regarding holiday and special occasion scheduling.

The applicant sought child support for her son Lukas from the respondent father.

The central issue was determining the respondent's annual income for child support purposes.

The respondent, a self-employed plumber, declared minimal income of approximately $9,744 annually while maintaining expenses of $55,674 and paying $665 monthly in child support for another child.

The court found this financial picture implausible and drew an adverse inference that the respondent was earning substantially more than declared.

The court imputed annual net income of $45,000 based on the respondent's prior employment history and current lifestyle, resulting in monthly child support of $418 and arrears of $14,186.

The respondent brought a motion to strike portions of the applicant's amended application relating to a hardship argument under section 10 of the Child Support Guidelines, based on the applicant's failure to comply with multiple court orders requiring financial disclosure and other documentation.

The applicant had failed to produce employer letters, court orders from related proceedings, financial statements, Family Responsibility Office statements, and standard of living calculations despite multiple consent orders and judicial directions.

The court found that while striking pleadings is a remedy of last resort, the applicant's persistent non-compliance with disclosure obligations, particularly those central to his hardship argument, warranted a partial strike.

The court distinguished between the applicant's custody and access claims, which were not struck due to the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer and the importance of full evidence on child-related issues, and his hardship argument, which was struck with leave to reinstate upon full compliance with disclosure orders.