Bernadette McCartney

In an application for a status review under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, the respondent father moved for a temporary order for supervised access with specific terms, including an alternative supervision agency.

The Children's Aid Society (applicant) and the respondent mother agreed to supervised access but opposed the father's proposed terms, particularly the agency.

The court reviewed the father's history of domestic violence, substance abuse, and instability, finding his proposed alternative agency unsuitable.

The court ordered supervised access at Pathstone when available, with virtual or telephone access in the interim, and stipulated that repeated missed visits would terminate access.

The father's specific requests for an alternative agency were denied.

In a high-conflict family law proceeding, the respondent mother brought a motion seeking a payout from the children's RESP to cover the eldest daughter's student debt, transfer of the RESP control to herself, and a variation of the father's access to the youngest child based on OCL recommendations.

The applicant father opposed the relief and brought his own motion for access.

The court ordered one-third of the RESP funds to be paid out for the daughter's debt and transferred the remainder to the mother as trustee, finding jurisdiction to deal with RESPs on an interim basis.

The court declined to vary the existing access schedule pending trial but ordered the father not to enter the mother's property or record access exchanges.

The applicant father brought a motion to increase his access to the parties' three-year-old child.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer had conducted an investigation and recommended a gradual increase in access, noting that the father's doctor had no concerns about his pain medication management.

The respondent mother opposed the increase, citing ongoing concerns about the father's prescription medication use.

The court found the mother's concerns were unfounded and contrary to objective medical evidence, and granted the motion to increase the father's access.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking to move child support jurisdiction from Louisiana to Ontario and to continue a restraining order.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion for Christmas access and to vacate the restraining order.

The court dismissed the applicant's jurisdictional motion on the basis of res judicata, as the issue had already been decided by both the Louisiana court and previously by the Ontario court.

The court adjourned the respondent's access motion because he had not commenced the court-ordered counselling required for supervised access.

The court continued the restraining order, finding the applicant had reasonable grounds for fear, and dismissed the respondent's motion to vacate it.

The moving party (father) brought a motion for an order requiring the responding party (mother) to file necessary forms to commence immediate reconciliation counselling between the children and the father at Pathstone.

The Children's Lawyer supported immediate counselling.

The mother objected to paying her share and to the agency's process of communicating with lawyers.

The court granted the motion, finding the children needed immediate counselling and concluding the mother's objections were not serious and demonstrated she was deliberately stalling reconciliation for her own purposes.

The child protection agency sought a temporary order under s. 51 of the Child and Family Services Act continuing a previous without‑prejudice order placing three children primarily in the mother’s care with supervision and access arrangements involving the father.

The court reviewed evidence of family conflict, the son’s aggressive behaviour, and parental challenges including mental health concerns and emotional volatility.

Applying the statutory principles of best interests of the child, preservation of family integrity, and the least disruptive course of action, the court determined different interim arrangements for each child.

The son and older daughter were placed with the mother subject to supervision and access to the father, while the youngest daughter was ordered to reside with both parents on an alternating schedule under supervision.

The Family Law Act custody motion was stayed pending the child protection proceeding.