A.W.J. Sullivan

The applicant, the biological mother of the child J., brought a motion to change a 2016 final order that granted sole custody to the paternal grandmother (L.M.).

The applicant sought to change custody to herself, citing improvements in her mental health, stable housing, stable income, and an improved relationship with the child's father.

The court found that while the applicant had made positive changes in her life, these changes did not constitute a material change in circumstances sufficient to alter the child's custodial arrangements.

The court noted that the child was thriving in the grandmother's care and that the applicant had not demonstrated that the grandmother's care fell below recognized standards.

The motion was dismissed, but the court expanded access from three weekends per month to every other weekend, and granted summer vacation access and holiday access provisions.

A 15-year-old youth initiated a protection application against her parents and the Children's Aid Society, seeking temporary care and custody with the Society.

The youth suffers from obsessive-compulsive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder stemming from childhood sexual abuse.

She refuses treatment and rejects her parents' involvement in her care.

On three separate occasions between May and September 2018, the youth was discharged from hospitals and residential placements with no caregiver willing to assume responsibility, leaving her vulnerable in the community.

The court found that despite the parents' historical efforts to locate treatment, the repeated failure to provide physical care when community placements broke down constituted a protection concern.

The court granted the youth's motion, placing her in the temporary care and custody of the Children's Aid Society and authorizing the Society to act as substitute decision-maker for medical treatment.

The applicant sought spousal support following the breakdown of her marriage to the respondent.

The applicant had immigrated to Canada from Mexico, was sponsored by the respondent, and they married in 2012.

After the applicant's refugee claim was denied, she returned to Mexico and waited approximately 3.5 years for her sponsorship to be processed.

Upon her return to Canada in 2015, the parties cohabited for nine months before separating.

The applicant sought $1,500 per month for three years, citing the respondent's sponsorship undertaking and her need for retraining.

The respondent argued the applicant was not entitled to support and should be self-sufficient.

The court found the applicant entitled to spousal support on both a non-compensatory needs basis and a contractual basis arising from the sponsorship agreement.

The court awarded $1,000 per month for 18 months (December 1, 2018 to June 30, 2020), declining to impute income to the applicant and declining to award retroactive support due to the potential social assistance debt repayment obligation.

This is a costs decision following a trial regarding parental access to a child.

The respondent sought costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $8,976.38 after obtaining unsupervised access and increased holiday access contrary to the applicant's position.

The court considered the presumption that a successful party is entitled to costs under Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules, but balanced this against the applicant's limited financial circumstances and the impact on the child's welfare.

The court found the applicant's litigation position was not taken in bad faith, though it was not supported by the facts.

The court awarded reduced costs of $4,500.00, structured as a deferred credit to be applied toward future section 7 expenses for the child.

Maternal grandparents brought a motion for temporary access to their granddaughter following a three-year period of living together in the grandparents' home.

The mother obtained sole custody in 2015 and moved out in February 2017, thereafter denying the grandparents contact.

The grandparents sought every other weekend access or, alternatively, supervised access through a supervised access center.

The mother opposed the motion entirely.

The court found the mother's decision to deny access was reasonable, as the relationship between the grandparents and mother was poisoned by a history of control, interference, and boundary violations.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence that the child had been negatively impacted by the separation and that the grandparents' motivation was rooted in control rather than the child's best interests.

A trial concerning custody, access, and child support for Eden Jade Oliveira-Blackett, born July 6, 2016.

The applicant mother sought sole custody with detailed access restrictions based on the respondent father's work and volunteer coaching schedule.

The respondent sought joint custody with primary residence to the mother.

The court found that sole custody with the applicant was in the child's best interests, citing the respondent's poor communication, inability to cooperate on significant parenting decisions (particularly regarding the child's baptism and medical care), and his pattern of prioritizing his own interests over the child's welfare.

The court imputed income to the respondent and ordered child support and section 7 expense sharing.

This is a motion to change child support for an adult disabled child.

The respondent sought to reduce or terminate his child support obligations for his adult son, who turned 18 in 2012 and has a lifetime disability.

The applicant challenged the constitutionality of the Family Law Act provision limiting support eligibility to children attending school, arguing it violated the Charter.

The court found the provision discriminatory and applied a broader definition of eligibility.

The court then determined appropriate child support under section 3(2)(b) of the Child Support Guidelines, considering the child's needs, means, and the parents' financial ability to contribute, rather than applying the standard Table amount.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $518.41 per month, representing an equal split of the shortfall between the child's income and identified needs.

This is a summary judgment motion in a child protection case involving fraternal twins born prematurely in 2016.

The Children's Aid Society of Peel sought a finding that the children were in need of protection under section 74(2)(b)(i) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act and requested extended care (crown wardship) with no access for adoption purposes.

The respondent mother opposed the motion and sought return of the children to her care.

The court found that the children tested positive for cocaine at birth, the mother had unresolved substance abuse issues, mental health management concerns, and domestic violence issues in her relationships.

The court granted the Society's motion, finding the children in need of protection and placing them in extended care of the Society, while granting supervised access to the mother.

An application under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act by a California resident seeking initial child support and medical coverage for his son from the respondent residing in Ontario.

The child has Autism Spectrum Disorder and resides primarily with the applicant in California, with summer access to the respondent in Canada.

The court determined child support based on the respondent's income and established Section 7 extraordinary expenses for medical and related costs, while offsetting airline ticket expenses incurred by the respondent for the child's access visits.

A motion for costs brought by the respondent father against the Children's Aid Society of the Region of Peel in a child protection matter.

The father challenged the Society's apprehension of his newborn son, arguing the Society acted unfairly and with reckless disregard when the dispute was merely between separated parents regarding discharge from hospital.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the Society acted reasonably and fairly in obtaining a warrant to apprehend the child following a serious conflict at the hospital involving verbal and physical confrontation between the parents, concerns raised about the mother's mental health, and intervention by nursing staff, security, and police.

The child was returned to the father's care within five days with a settlement agreement.

Trial decision regarding custody, access, and child support for a child with Autism Spectrum Disorder born to unmarried parents who never cohabited.

The applicant mother sought sole custody with regular access for the father and child support.

The respondent father sought joint custody and increased parenting time, arguing equal involvement in the child's care.

The court granted sole custody to the mother, finding that while the father maintained regular access and demonstrated love for the child, he had not undertaken the substantial parenting responsibilities required to address the child's special needs.

The court emphasized the poor communication between the parties and the lack of meaningful cooperation in managing the child's therapeutic requirements, which militated against a joint custody order.

The court awarded child support and detailed access provisions.

A custody and child support trial involving two unmarried parents of a four-year-old child.

The applicant father sought sole custody with limited access for the respondent mother, while the respondent sought sole custody with alternating weekend and mid-week access for the father.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, finding that while both parents were evenly matched on most best interests factors, the mother demonstrated greater willingness to compromise and include the father in the child's care.

The father's pattern of argumentative behavior, unilateral decision-making, and unwillingness to cooperate with professionals and the other parent weighed against him.

The court also imputed income to the father and ordered retroactive child support arrears.

This is a child protection case under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act involving a child with complex medical needs (short bowel syndrome requiring G-tube feeding and intravenous nutrition).

The child was apprehended in July 2015 after the mother, a permanent resident from Niger, faced housing instability, expired work permit, and loss of income in Alberta.

The Society sought Crown wardship for adoption.

The court found the child was in need of protection due to the mother's failure to adequately care for the child given the circumstances at the time of apprehension.

However, after hearing extensive evidence regarding the mother's demonstrated ability to care for the child in Alberta, her improved cooperation with the Society, and the child's strong bond with his mother, the court ordered the child be placed in the mother's care subject to Society supervision for six months rather than granting Crown wardship.

The decision emphasizes the importance of continuity of care, cultural and linguistic considerations, and the least disruptive course of action.

The respondent brought a motion to change a prior custody and child support order, seeking increased access to his son and reduced child support obligations.

The applicant opposed the access changes and sought recalculation of child support based on the respondent's increased income and elimination of his support obligations for two children from a previous relationship.

The court found a material change in circumstances warranting modification of the access provisions but not the child support amount.

The court granted overnight weekend access and extended summer access to the respondent, while imputing income based on his historical earning capacity as a truck driver and reducing his child support obligations accordingly.

The applicant brought a motion to change a separation agreement dated November 18, 2011, seeking clarification on two issues: arrears of child support and the fixing of income for the purposes of calculating child support under a shared parenting arrangement.

The respondent sought to impute income to the applicant at $80,000, arguing she was intentionally underemployed.

The court declined to impute income at that level and instead set the applicant's income at $45,000 for the purposes of section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines, considering her employment history, retraining efforts, caregiving responsibilities, and the manner in which the parties had structured their separation agreement.

The applicant sought retroactive recalculation of child support from 2010, section 7 contributions for special expenses, and spousal support.

The respondent opposed the spousal support claim and sought reduction in retroactive child support arrears.

The court found the applicant entitled to retroactive child support arrears of $14,963.00, proportionate section 7 contributions including speech therapy, and spousal support of $750 per month for three years.

The decision turned on the applicant's role as primary caregiver of a child with autism spectrum disorder and the economic consequences of that caregiving role on her employment capacity.

The applicant father sought to change a 2012 consent order from joint custody to sole custody, to establish child support obligations for the respondent mother, and to establish a new access schedule following his relocation with the children to Saskatchewan.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the father's employment-driven move to Saskatchewan and the mother's deteriorated health.

The court maintained the joint custody arrangement, finding both parents had meaningful contributions to offer the children.

The court imputed income to the mother based on her financial discrepancies and ordered her to pay child support of $467 per month commencing June 1, 2016.

The court established a detailed access schedule for the mother's visits with the children in Ontario and clarified transportation cost allocation between the parents.

Application for custody and child support regarding Connor Heuer, born May 19, 2007.

The applicant mother sought sole custody, child support, travel document authority, and restrictions on communication with the respondent father.

The respondent father sought sole custody or, in the alternative, joint custody with shared residence.

The court found that joint custody and parallel parenting arrangements were not viable due to high parental conflict, poor communication, and the applicant's ongoing struggles with prescription drug abuse and mental health issues.

The court awarded sole custody to the respondent father, with the applicant receiving access every other weekend and specified holiday periods.

The respondent was ordered to consult with the applicant on major decisions affecting the child's health, education, religion, and upbringing.

This is a summary judgment motion under the Child and Family Services Act where the Children's Aid Society sought a permanent custody order (section 57.1) placing a child with the paternal grandmother.

The biological mother opposed the motion and sought return of the child to her care, alternatively requesting a supervision order or access arrangements.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding the child's continued need for protection and determined that placement with the grandmother was in the child's best interests.

The mother's evidence of progress in mental health treatment was insufficient to overcome concerns about her lack of engagement with the child over one year, her refusal to permit home visits, and her ongoing behavioral issues during access visits.

An application for spousal support under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act (ISOA) where the applicant, a medical graduate residing in British Columbia, sought $2,500 per month in support from the respondent, a lawyer residing in Ontario.

The parties had been in a common-law relationship for approximately six years and eight months, from August 2007 to February 2014.

The respondent contested the application, arguing the parties did not meet the qualifying period for common-law status and that the applicant was capable of self-support.

The court found the parties constituted a common-law couple within the meaning of the Family Law Act, established the applicant's entitlement to spousal support on a non-compensatory basis, and declined to impute income to the applicant.

The court also declined to set off RBC loan payments against support payments, finding it lacked jurisdiction over property matters.