Dorothea Maame Ekua Serwaa Ampiah Dadson

This trial primarily concerned parenting time and child support for the parties' 4-year-old daughter.

The applicant mother sought supervised parenting time for the respondent father, dispensation of his consent for the child's government documentation and international travel, and retroactive child support.

The father sought liberal, unsupervised parenting time and opposed retroactive support.

The court found the father perpetrated family violence, was not credible, and was intentionally underemployed.

The court ordered supervised parenting time with specific COVID-19 safety precautions, granted the mother sole authority for documentation and travel, and ordered retroactive child support based on the father's actual and imputed income.

The court issued a costs endorsement following a motion hearing on custody, access, and child support.

The mother sought temporary custody and child support; the father sought joint custody and unsupervised access.

The parties agreed on child support and primary residence with the mother.

The court granted the mother temporary custody with supervised access to the father.

The mother sought costs of $4,746; the father sought no costs or minimal costs.

The court found the mother was the successful party on custody and parenting time issues and awarded costs of $2,000, payable at $125 per month starting March 1, 2020.

The court declined to enforce the costs order through the Family Responsibility Office as the costs were attributable to parenting issues, not support.

A child protection application concerning a nine-month-old child born to parents with histories of substance abuse and incarceration.

The society sought extended society care with no access.

The father sought continuation of weekly supervised access.

The court considered whether an access order would be in the child's best interests under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, applying the holistic best interests test.

The court found that while the father's visits were positive in quality, they were inconsistent in frequency and timing.

Critically, a prospective adoptive family willing to adopt the child with her half-sibling was prepared to do so only without an access order.

The court determined that no access order was in the child's best interests, balancing the benefits of maintaining biological connection against the certainty of immediate permanent placement with a racially and culturally matched family.

A stepmother sought temporary access to a nine-year-old child on alternate weekends and three weeks during summer.

The biological parents opposed all access.

The court found that the stepmother had formed a settled intention to treat the child as her own and had a close, loving relationship with the child spanning from age one to age nine.

The court granted limited temporary access on one weekend every four weeks, finding that parental autonomy does not extend to excluding a person who has assumed the role of a third parent.

The court rejected the parents' allegations against the stepmother as lacking credibility and found the parents were acting arbitrarily and in bad faith.

The father brought a motion to change final orders seeking expanded access to two younger children (ages 6 and 4), reduction in child support obligations, and termination of spousal support.

The mother cross-moved for supervised access, continuation of support obligations, and removal of the father's name from RESPs.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on the birth of a second special needs child, the father's inconsistent exercise of access, and his failure to educate himself about the children's autism spectrum disorder.

Access was ordered to be supervised for both younger children pending the father's demonstration of consistent visitation and completion of autism education.

Child support was reduced by consent, spousal support was terminated, and section 7 expenses were ordered to be paid by the father at $2,000 monthly until June 2016, then $1,500 monthly thereafter, capped at $18,000 annually.

The father's name was removed from the RESPs.

The father brought a motion to change a default order dated May 2, 2011, which granted the mother custody of the child and ordered the father to pay $182 monthly in child support based on an imputed minimum wage income.

The father sought specified access, rescission of arrears, and termination of ongoing support.

The mother opposed the motion and sought to maintain Saturday-only access with limited telephone contact.

The court found the father's evidence regarding his financial circumstances to be replete with inconsistencies and internal contradictions, and determined he was either gainfully employed or capable of earning at least minimum wage.

The court dismissed the father's motions for financial relief but allowed, in part, his motion for a change in access by expanding it to include Wednesday evening visits with specific conditions.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a final custody order dated February 6, 2009, seeking sole custody of the child and child support.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion seeking sole custody with reduced access to the mother.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on the father's denial of access for over three months in 2009, unilateral decision-making contrary to the joint custody order, and an immunization incident demonstrating lack of communication.

The court maintained the joint custody arrangement with the child's primary residence remaining with the father, but modified the parenting schedule to provide the mother with three out of every four weekends, midweek access, and specified holiday arrangements.

The court rejected both parties' requests for sole custody, finding that while communication between the parties was imperfect, they had demonstrated sufficient cooperation since December 2010 to support a joint custody order with detailed specifications.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking leave to continue an action under the Children's Law Reform Act for custody or joint custody of two young children, notwithstanding an automatic stay triggered by the respondent mother's commencement of a divorce action in Superior Court.

The mother had removed the children from Toronto to Goderich without notice and restricted the father's access.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the mother's conduct in bringing the divorce action in Goderich (rather than Toronto where the children ordinarily resided) constituted bad faith and tactical maneuvering, the efficiency and economy of consolidating all issues—including property matters requiring Superior Court jurisdiction—in a single forum outweighed the prejudice to the father and children from the delay.

The court noted that urgent motions could be brought in Superior Court within approximately two weeks.