Brian D. Kinnear

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a 2012 deemed custody order, seeking primary residence of her two adolescent children and child support.

The respondent father opposed the motion, seeking to retain custody, reduce the mother's parenting time, and obtain child support.

The court found a material change in circumstances but dismissed the mother's request for primary residence, citing the children's strong views and preferences to remain with their father and the mother's inability to manage the son's behavioural issues.

The court reduced the mother's parenting time in accordance with the children's wishes and ordered her to pay $280 per month in child support based on an income of $18,500.

The Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an extended care order for three children who were apprehended due to the parents' homelessness, substance abuse, and domestic violence.

The father was noted in default.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking the return of the children or, alternatively, extensive access.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, as the mother had not mitigated the risk factors and continued to struggle with drug use and housing instability.

The court ordered extended care with supervised access for the mother once per month, finding that more frequent access was not in the children's best interests given her history of missed visits.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a final order regarding child custody, access, and support.

The respondent father sought shared custody and the rescission of child support arrears.

The court found the father lacked the personality and stability required for shared custody, noting his history of domestic violence, substance abuse, and failure to pay child support.

The court ordered primary residence to remain with the mother, set a specific alternate weekend access schedule for the father, and refused to rescind the child support arrears, though it reduced them slightly due to a past injury.

Following a successful motion to change resulting in the father obtaining primary care of the child after a five‑day trial, the court addressed costs.

Although the mother reasonably contested the change despite an assessor’s recommendation favoring the father, the father remained the successful party.

The court emphasized the civility of the litigation and acknowledged the financial realities faced by both parties.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis but structured to avoid immediate enforcement against the mother due to her limited resources.

The award was fixed but not enforceable through family support enforcement mechanisms or set‑off against ongoing child support.

The father brought a motion to change the primary care of his five-year-old son from the mother in Orillia to himself in London.

The child had previously been in week-about care until starting school.

A privately retained assessor recommended the father assume primary care due to the mother's struggles with effective discipline and controlling her household.

The court weighed the benefits of the father's consistent parenting against the risk of separating the child from his mother and siblings.

The court granted the motion, finding that the child's need for consistent discipline to self-regulate his behaviour was paramount, and ordered primary care to the father with a detailed access schedule for the mother.