Cynthia Pon

This decision addresses a contested motion to change a final parenting order involving allegations of parental non-compliance, child retention, and concerns about family violence.

The court carefully analyzed the material change in circumstances test under the Children’s Law Reform Act and applied the Supreme Court of Canada’s two-stage test from Gordon v. Goertz.

The father’s motion to change was dismissed due to his breaches of the final order, including wrongful retention of the child and failure to pay child support.

The mother’s motion was granted, resulting in supervised parenting time for the father, restrictions on his ability to travel internationally with the child, and an expanded restraining order including a no-contact provision except for urgent child-related matters.

The court emphasized the child’s best interests, prioritizing stability, safety, and the child’s emotional well-being, while providing a structured plan for the father to regain unsupervised parenting time through demonstrated compliance and therapy.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking an order that the habitual residence of the children be deemed Toronto, Ontario, and that the Ontario Court of Justice assume jurisdiction over parenting issues.

The motion also sought orders for decision-making responsibility, primary residence, a non-removal order, and supervised parenting time for the father.

The father had unlawfully retained the children in Pakistan, leading to Habeas Corpus proceedings there where the Pakistani High Court ordered the children's return to the mother and their passports, deferring the jurisdictional issue to their family court.

The Ontario court found overwhelming evidence that the children's habitual residence was Toronto, Ontario, and assumed jurisdiction, granting the mother temporary sole decision-making responsibility, primary residence, a non-removal order, and supervised access for the father.

A summary judgment motion under the Family Law Rules in a child protection proceeding.

The Children's Aid Society sought an order placing the child in the care of the father subject to Society supervision for six months.

The father and child's counsel supported the order; the mother opposed it, arguing there was a genuine issue requiring trial regarding the credibility of the parties regarding a crack cocaine incident and the issue of access.

The court found no genuine issue requiring trial and granted the summary judgment motion, placing the child in the father's care with access to the mother at the Society's discretion.

A mother sought to transfer a child protection proceeding from Toronto to St. Lambert, Quebec, and alternatively to Cornwall or Ottawa, Ontario.

She also sought increased access to her child who was in the care of the Children's Aid Society.

The court found that it lacked jurisdiction to transfer the proceeding outside Ontario and that the mother failed to establish a preponderance of convenience for transfer within Ontario.

The court granted the mother increased access from two hours to three hours per week, with one hour potentially supervised by an approved third party, conditional on negative drug test results.

The Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion seeking a finding that a child was in need of protection under clause 37(2)(b) of the Child and Family Services Act based on the mother's mental health issues, substance abuse, and domestic violence.

The father supported the motion while the mother opposed it.

The court granted the motion and found the child in need of protection, determining that the mother's combination of untreated mental health conditions, ongoing drug use during pregnancy and post-birth, and inability to protect herself from domestic violence created a real and likely risk of physical harm to the child.