Beth Christine Allison White

This motion concerned temporary parenting and decision-making responsibilities for four children following parental separation.

The father sought joint decision-making and shared parenting, while the mother sought sole decision-making and primary parenting with limited time for the father, along with an order for the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court found that the existing 2/2/5/5 shared parenting schedule was not unilaterally imposed and was meeting the children's needs for stability.

Allegations of the father's mental health, substance abuse, and violence were not substantiated by evidence or CAS records.

The court granted the father's motion for joint decision-making and shared parenting, dismissing the mother's request for sole decision-making and restricted parenting time.

Child support was set based on offsetting incomes.

The parties agreed that the father would have an opportunity to purchase the matrimonial home before a sale order.

This case involved married spouses who separated and had two children.

The court addressed remaining issues after a partial settlement, including parenting arrangements, spousal support, and child support.

The court ordered shared parenting with preferential time allocated to the Mother, while denying the Mother's request to relocate with the children.

Income was imputed to the Mother for support purposes, and the Father was ordered to pay spousal support and ongoing child support with retroactive adjustments.

The father brought a motion to change a 2017 parenting order concerning a young child.

He argued that a material change in circumstances had occurred due to employment changes, relocation back to the child’s community, the birth of the child’s sibling, and the mother’s unilateral restriction of parenting time.

The court found a material change had occurred and held that the child’s best interests required a more stable and balanced parenting schedule.

The court rejected the father’s request for a two‑week rotating schedule but implemented a week‑about shared parenting arrangement and replaced the earlier order.

The court also recalculated child support arrears and set a payment plan while maintaining joint decision‑making responsibility.

This is a costs decision following an unsuccessful motion to change custody and access brought by the mother.

The father sought joint custody with primary residence in his home, while the mother sought sole custody with no access to the paternal uncle.

The court awarded the father sole custody with specified access to the mother.

The father was the successful party and sought costs in the amount of $12,944.79.

The court awarded costs in the reduced amount of $1,000.00, considering the mother's limited financial means, mental health difficulties, and the fact that she was self-represented, while also recognizing the need to discourage unnecessary litigation and encourage settlement.

The applicant, uncle of a minor child, brought a motion to change a prior custody order following the death of the child's biological father.

The respondent, the child's mother, sought sole custody with no specified access for the applicant.

The applicant sought joint custody with primary residence in his home.

The court found that the respondent's parenting abilities were significantly limited, evidenced by poor school attendance records, lack of structure and boundaries, and the child assuming a caregiver role for the mother.

The applicant demonstrated stable, loving parenting with appropriate supervision and structure.

The court granted sole custody to the applicant with specified access to the respondent, finding that joint custody was not feasible given the respondent's unwillingness to cooperate and her apparent cognitive limitations.

A paternal grandmother sought custody of two indigenous children and opposed the maternal grandmother's request to relocate with the children from Kenora to Cochrane, Ontario.

The maternal grandmother had been the primary caregiver since the children's births, while both parents struggled with severe addiction issues.

The court awarded custody to the maternal grandmother and granted permission for relocation, finding that stability with the primary caregiver and the maternal grandmother's genuine commitment to the children's welfare outweighed concerns about the paternal grandmother's age and fears of severed contact.

The court established a detailed access regime to preserve the paternal grandmother's relationship with the children.

The child protection agency sought leave to withdraw its protection application for two children in a high-conflict custody and access dispute between separated parents.

The agency argued that its involvement was exacerbating the situation and was not in the children's best interests.

The father and children's counsel supported the withdrawal, while the mother opposed it, seeking continued agency involvement to establish parental alienation.

The court granted the agency's motion to withdraw, finding that the matter was fundamentally a custody and access dispute better suited to Superior Court, that the children were uncooperative with services, and that continued child protection involvement would be detrimental to their interests.

The applicant estate trustee sought a declaration that a life insurance beneficiary designation was invalid, arguing that an attorney for property cannot make a testamentary disposition.

The deceased policyholder, who was mentally competent but physically disabled by multiple sclerosis, had directed his attorney for property to change the beneficiary designation.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the attorney acted as an amanuensis or agent (by procuration) rather than a substitute decision-maker.

The court held that the change was a valid declaration under the Insurance Act, and the newly designated beneficiaries were entitled to the proceeds.

Motion to change a custody order dated September 28, 2007.

The father sought joint custody with primary care to himself; the mother sought sole custody with father having reasonable access.

The court granted joint custody with primary residence to the mother, finding that the father's engagement in criminal activity (marijuana use) in the presence of the children and his false statement to the mother regarding a child's health emergency were significant concerns affecting his suitability as primary caregiver.

The father was ordered to pay child support of $695.00 per month for two children based on an income of $46,000.00.

On competing family law motions, the respondent sought unsupervised access to eight‑month‑old twin children while the applicant sought child support and an order requiring the respondent to pay mortgage and household expenses in lieu of spousal support.

The court considered evidence of alleged domestic violence, alcohol abuse, mental health concerns, and recent criminal charges, as well as the position of child protection authorities requiring supervised contact.

Given the children’s vulnerability and the absence of corroborating evidence from treatment providers or child protection services supporting unsupervised parenting, the court held that unsupervised access was not in the children’s best interests at that time.

An interim‑interim order continued supervised access through Child and Family Services with the possibility of expanded supervised visits through a supervised access centre.

The court also ordered guideline child support and an interim‑interim arrangement for mortgage payments as temporary spousal support pending a further motion.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a final custody order from October 29, 2012, seeking equal shared custody (week on/week off arrangement) of two children.

The respondent mother opposed the change and sought increased child support based on the father's reported 2013 income.

The court found no material change in circumstances warranting a change in custody.

The father's aggressive and confrontational conduct, including inappropriate emails and text messages to the mother, combined with his partner's interference at the children's school and the issuance of trespass notices, militated against granting equal parenting.

The court maintained the existing joint custody arrangement with primary care remaining with the mother and kept child support at $400 per month.

Application by the mother for custody and support of the child Ryker Christian Howard, born December 4, 2012.

The father sought custody/access and quantification of child support.

The parties resolved custody and access issues on May 28, 2014, with the mother having primary care and the father having specified access.

The court determined child support based on imputed income of $23,000 per annum for the father, ordered monthly payments of $195.00 plus arrears payments and extraordinary expense contributions, and issued a support deduction order.

This is a supplemental written decision addressing costs following a custody/access determination released orally on February 24, 2014.

The court found that the respondent was the successful party in a custody dispute that had been litigated for approximately four years.

The applicant had a history of agreeing to orders and then not following them, and the court found exceptional circumstances warranting a change of custody from the mother to the father.

The court awarded costs to the successful party, finding that the applicant's financial constraints due to legal aid status did not eliminate the presumption in favour of costs.

The court also addressed child support, imputing income at $20,000 per annum and setting support at $308 per month, and made amendments to access times and provisions regarding birth certificates and health care cards.

The applicant spouse brought a motion for interim spousal support following separation after approximately 28 years of cohabitation and marriage without children.

The applicant had left the matrimonial home and her employment following separation and was receiving employment insurance benefits after prior health issues including cancer treatment.

The respondent conceded entitlement to support but disputed the amount, citing commuting and living expenses.

The court applied the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines using updated income figures and considered the parties’ expenses and circumstances.

Interim support was ordered at the low end of the SSAG range.

The parties were involved in a high-conflict custody dispute over their two children.

The mother, who previously had primary care, unilaterally moved the children to another city and repeatedly breached access orders.

The father sought sole custody.

The court found the mother to be unreasonable, volatile, and unable to foster a relationship between the children and their father.

The court rejected the Office of the Children's Lawyer's recommendation that the mother retain sole custody, finding the father and his fiancé would provide better stability.

The father was awarded sole custody, and the mother was granted specified access and ordered to pay child support.

The applicant brought an interim motion seeking primary care and control of the parties’ young child, child support based on the respondent’s alleged income of $65,000, reimbursement of daycare expenses, and continuation of extended health coverage.

The parties had been exercising an equal week‑on/week‑off shared parenting arrangement between two communities since separation.

The court held that where a consensual shared parenting arrangement had been functioning for approximately 18 months and both parents were acknowledged to be capable, a compelling reason was required to alter the arrangement on an interim basis.

Finding conflicting evidence and no pressing need for change, the court maintained the existing shared parenting arrangement pending trial.

The court also determined interim child support based on the respondent’s lower current income and ordered proportionate sharing of daycare costs.

A status review application for Crown Wardship with no access concerning two children (ages 8 and 6) who were apprehended due to parental neglect, substance abuse, and psychological disturbance.

The court found that the children continue to be in need of protection and that Crown Wardship without access is in their best interests.

The children exhibited severe developmental delays, inappropriate sexualized behaviour, and lack of secure attachment to either parent.

Expert evidence from Dr. Ellis established that the parents lack the capacity to meet the children's profound emotional and psychological needs.

The court rejected the father's position that he could parent the children with minimal supervision, finding his credibility suspect and his denial of parenting shortfalls deeply rooted in his character.