Debra Paulseth

A child protection application brought by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking a finding that a child is in need of protection due to risk of sexual abuse or exploitation.

The respondent mother acted as surety for her brother, who was charged with multiple counts of luring, sexual exploitation, and child pornography involving teenage female students.

The court found the child to be in need of protection based on the mother's failure to recognize or protect against the risk posed by the maternal uncle, despite overwhelming evidence of his predatory conduct.

The court made a finding of need for protection but declined to make a further order, noting that the maternal uncle's incarceration had ameliorated the imminent risk.

A costs endorsement following a focused hearing on the issue of additional overnight access to the father on alternate weekends in a family law matter.

The applicant (mother) sought costs of $21,140.47 on a full recovery basis after being successful in opposing the respondent's (father's) request for additional overnight access.

The court awarded costs of $17,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, finding that the mother was reasonable, child-focused, and completely successful, while the father failed to serve any offers to settle and provided minimal evidentiary support for his position.

This is a costs decision in a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act.

The Children's Aid Society sought a finding in need of protection for two children based on exposure to high-conflict parental separation and the father's refusal to consent to recommended medical treatment.

The mother sought costs against the father, alleging bad faith and unreasonable conduct that prolonged the proceedings over six court appearances spanning several months.

The court found the father's conduct to be persistently and extraordinarily unreasonable, including filing excessive and irrelevant affidavit material, maintaining a meritless legal argument, failing to attend trial management conferences, and using access negotiations as leverage in the costs dispute.

The court awarded costs to the mother on a partial indemnity basis.

A child protection status review application brought by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking final custody of three children to the mother with restricted access to the father and a restraining order.

The court granted summary judgment on the motion, finding that the father's conduct had not changed since the previous order, that he continued to engage in harassment and threatening behaviour toward the mother and children, and that the children's best interests were served by sole custody to the mother with supervised access to the father.

The court also granted a restraining order against the father prohibiting direct or indirect contact with the mother and children except through a designated supervised access facility.

A child protection matter under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act involving a child (B-J) born in 2009 to a mother with a longstanding oxycontin addiction and a father with a history of incarceration.

The child was apprehended in September 2014 following allegations of domestic violence and placed with family friends (the F.).

A finding of need of protection was made in February 2015 based on domestic violence and drug use.

The mother was given multiple opportunities over nearly three years to comply with court-ordered conditions including drug treatment, counselling, and consistent access.

Despite these opportunities and various court orders, the mother repeatedly failed to maintain clean urine screens, attend counselling programs, and maintain consistent access with the child.

The mother also chose a new partner with a serious criminal record and active drug addiction.

The court found that the child's best interests required a Crown wardship order to provide permanency and stability, as the mother had demonstrated an inability to address the core risk factors of drug addiction and domestic violence exposure.

A child protection case involving a four-month-old infant who suffered severe traumatic head injuries including subdural hemorrhaging, retinal hemorrhages, and brain damage.

The child was hospitalized after the father called an ambulance on October 2, 2015.

The Children's Aid Society sought a finding that both children were in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act.

The parents disputed the cause of injury, with the father's expert suggesting a chronic medical condition (subdural hygroma) with spontaneous rebleeding, while the Society's expert concluded the injuries resulted from traumatic head trauma inflicted or inadequately protected against by the parents.

The court accepted the Society's expert evidence and found both children in need of protection.

Mother brought a motion to change a 2007 Separation Agreement to increase child support retroactively to 2007, enforce special expenses for post-secondary education, and extend spousal support beyond the agreed termination date of December 31, 2017.

Father opposed the motion.

The court found material changes in circumstances, including father's income increase from $138,546 to over $152,000, mother's inability to obtain full-time employment due to medical conditions, and the children's post-secondary education expenses.

The court granted the motion in substantial part, ordering retroactive child support from January 1, 2013, ongoing child support at $2,044 per month, proportionate contributions to post-secondary expenses at 69.6% for father and 30.4% for mother, and indefinite spousal support at $2,200 per month commencing March 1, 2016.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion to change custody and access arrangements.

The mother was completely successful in obtaining sole custody of two children, with the father receiving limited supervised access and the paternal grandparents prohibited from direct contact with the children.

The father had sought sole decision-making authority over educational matters, while the mother cross-moved for sole custody.

The court awarded costs to the mother against both the father and paternal grandparents in the amount of $150,000, finding the mother's conduct reasonable throughout the proceedings and the father and paternal grandparents' conduct unreasonable, including making false allegations and coaching the children.