Cynthia Karen Lauer

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking custody of the parties' two children and an order preventing their removal from Ontario.

The parties separated after the respondent mother and children moved to a women's shelter due to domestic violence concerns.

The court declined to make a custody order or alter the current residency arrangements on an emergency basis, noting the mother had surrendered the children's passports to her counsel.

The court ordered that the children primarily reside with the mother on a without prejudice basis, varied a previous non-removal order to include the Greater Toronto Area, and granted the father daily telephone or Skype access with conditions.

The applicant child protection agency sought a temporary order placing two children in the care of their maternal grandparents, citing concerns about the parents' mental health and historical conflict.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, seeking the return of the children to her care subject to agency supervision.

The court found that the agency failed to establish reasonable grounds to believe the children would suffer harm if returned to the mother under supervision, noting that the parents had separated and the agency relied heavily on the grandmother's uncorroborated statements.

The children were ordered returned to the mother with conditions.

The applicant sought to set aside a separation agreement that included a spousal support waiver, claiming duress, lack of disclosure, and lack of independent legal advice under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act, as well as unconscionability under s. 33(4).

The respondent moved for summary judgment to dismiss these claims.

The court granted partial summary judgment, dismissing the s. 56(4) claims as there was no genuine issue for trial regarding the negotiation of the agreement.

However, the court found genuine issues for trial regarding whether the agreement was voided by a subsequent reconciliation and whether the spousal support waiver resulted in unconscionable circumstances, given the applicant was now living in a shelter and receiving public assistance.

The court ordered temporary spousal support of $1,800 per month pending trial.

In a family law motion concerning parenting time, the father sought a regular access schedule with the child while the mother preferred a flexible arrangement dependent on the child’s willingness to visit.

The court considered the child’s participation in a behavioural therapy program addressing oppositional defiance and anxiety disorders and the ongoing involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.

The judge concluded that leaving access entirely dependent on the child’s choice was inappropriate.

An interim structured access schedule was ordered, with expanded overnight access contingent on the father’s participation in the child’s therapy program and subject to the therapist’s recommendation.

The order was to remain in force pending the Office of the Children’s Lawyer report and further court direction.

The paternal grandmother sought to be added as a party to child protection proceedings brought by the Children's Aid Society.

The mother and stepfather opposed the motion.

The court applied the test from Children's Aid Society of London and Middlesex v. S.H., S.W. and D.R. and granted the motion, finding that adding the grandmother as a party served the child's best interests, would not unduly delay proceedings, was necessary to determine the issues, and that the grandmother was capable of putting forward a viable plan.

The grandmother was granted leave to file her answer and plan of care and to bring a motion for access.

The Children's Aid Society sought a temporary supervision order for a child with high-functioning autism who remained in the care of his mother pending a full protection hearing.

The society alleged the child was at risk of physical and emotional harm based on reports of inappropriate physical discipline, the mother's aggressive and confrontational behaviour toward service providers, her refusal to cooperate with the society, and her lack of understanding of the child's special needs.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the child was at risk and granted a temporary supervision order with specific terms and conditions, including prohibitions on physical discipline and requirements that the mother sign consents for information sharing with service providers.

In a family law motion concerning custody and relocation, the responding party sought primary residence of the children, restrictions on relocation, counselling orders, and a reduction in child support.

The moving party attempted to rely on a “reporting letter” authored by a parenting coordinator as evidence.

The court ruled the document inadmissible because it did not comply with the requirements for expert reports under the Family Law Rules, relied extensively on hearsay, and contained opinions outside the coordinator’s qualifications, including comments on mental health.

The court also held that parenting coordinators should not perform investigative or evidentiary roles and should limit their involvement to facilitating implementation of an existing parenting plan.

Without the report, the evidence did not support the father’s motion and the relocation was permitted.