Colin C. Lyle

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion to suspend the respondent father's access visits with their seven-year-old son due to concerns over COVID-19 and interprovincial travel between Ontario and Quebec.

The mother alleged the father failed to practice proper social distancing during a recent visit.

The court found that the father's actions were not reckless and that he had agreed to abide by COVID-19 protocols for future visits.

The motion was dismissed as not urgent, with the court emphasizing the presumption that existing parenting arrangements should continue safely.

The mother brought an application for custody and corollary relief in Ontario.

The father, residing in Pakistan, brought a motion to dismiss the application on the basis that Pakistani courts had already exercised jurisdiction, and sought the return of the children to Pakistan.

The court found that while the children were not habitually resident in Ontario at the commencement of the application, the requirements of s. 22(1)(b) of the Children's Law Reform Act were met.

The court assumed jurisdiction, noting the children's real and substantial connection to Ontario and the balance of convenience favouring Ontario.

The father's motion was dismissed.

The mother sought sole custody of the parties' two children, alleging severe parental alienation by the father.

The father also sought sole custody.

The court found that the father had engaged in a campaign of denigration against the mother, inappropriately involved the children in adult financial disputes, and empowered the children to disrespect and reject their mother.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother and suspended the father's access pending his completion of the first phase of intensive therapy, finding that the father's alienating behaviour was severely detrimental to the children's best interests.

The applicant brought a motion seeking extensive disclosure of the respondent's medical and personal records, alleging mental health issues.

The respondent opposed, arguing the requests were irrelevant, privileged, and constituted a fishing expedition.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding no evidence to support the mental health allegations, inferring an element of retaliation given the timing of the requests after criminal charges were laid against the applicant, and concluding the requests were overly broad.

The court awarded $5,000 in costs to the respondent, payable by September 30, 2017, or offset against future financial claims.

At a case conference in a high-conflict family law proceeding, the court noted the children were living in increasingly chaotic and harmful circumstances.

The respondent mother had been granted sole authority to decide the son's school, but the son was not attending regularly and was completely detached.

Recognizing that the Superior Court could not relieve the chaos and that the Children's Aid Society was deferring to the court, the judge ordered a stay of all proceedings, including the applicant father's trust claims, to allow the Society to investigate and potentially apprehend the children.