Douglas R. Haunts

The Applicant (mother) sought to establish Ontario jurisdiction for custody and access of two children, A and B, who were habitually resident in New York State with the Respondent (father).

The father had an existing Ontario custody order from 2014.

The mother withheld the children in Ontario after an access visit.

The court applied the Children's Law Reform Act, finding that both children were habitually resident in New York State and that the mother's actions constituted self-help.

The court declined to exercise jurisdiction under s. 22(1)(a) or s. 22(1)(b) of the Act, as not all criteria were met, and found that New York State was the appropriate jurisdiction due to the children's closer connection there.

The Applicant's application was dismissed.

The applicant Society brought a status review application seeking Crown wardship without access for a 20-month-old child.

The respondent parents opposed, seeking the child's return under a supervision order.

The court found the child in continuing need of protection due to the parents' ongoing domestic conflict and inability to remain separated despite extensive services.

The court ordered Crown wardship, finding the parents' plan for joint custody unrealistic.

However, the court found the parents rebutted the presumption against access, ordering access at the Society's discretion (minimum once per month) as it was meaningful, beneficial, and would not impair future adoption.

The applicant Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking Crown wardship without access for the child A.N.L-R. The respondent mother opposed, while the respondent father did not participate.

The court found the child in need of protection due to the mother's documented mental health issues, unstable relationships involving domestic violence, and inability to provide adequate care.

Despite the mother's arguments for more time to address concerns and claims of insufficient support, the court determined there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

Crown wardship was ordered, as less disruptive alternatives were deemed inadequate and the mother's plan lacked viability and sustained progress.

The court also found that the statutory presumption against access was not rebutted by either parent.

The Respondent mother brought a motion to change a consent order regarding custody and access, seeking increased time with the child and other variations.

The Applicant father brought a cross-motion seeking sole custody and reduced access for the mother.

The court found no material change in circumstances to justify a change in custody or significant changes in access, dismissing the father's motion for sole custody.

While the mother's request for 50% time was denied, the existing order was clarified and varied to allow for Monday morning returns after weekend access and additional time on PA days/holidays.

Several other minor changes regarding holiday schedules, telephone access, and communication methods were made by consent or court order.

The respondent mother brought a motion to change seeking expanded and overnight access to her child, who has been in the custody of the paternal grandmother since birth.

The grandmother opposed the expansion and sought to reduce access due to safety concerns, the mother's inconsistent exercise of access, and the child's heightened anxiety.

The court found a material change in circumstances and determined that expanded access was not in the child's best interests, citing the mother's refusal to vet new partners and failure to prioritize the child's needs.

The court reduced the mother's access to every other Saturday and dismissed the grandmother's request to restrict the mother from bringing future motions.

The Family and Children's Services of Frontenac, Lennox and Addington brought a status review application seeking Crown wardship without access for the child X.J.F.S. The mother, K.S., opposed this, seeking a supervision order to have the child returned to her care, a position supported by the father, J.B. The court found the child to be in continuing need of protection.

After considering the child's best interests, including the mother's inability to protect the child from unhealthy relationships and the paramount need for permanence and stability, the court ordered Crown wardship.

The court also granted the mother access, finding that her relationship with the child was meaningful and beneficial, and that access would not impair future adoption opportunities, but specified that access would be at the Society's discretion with a minimum frequency of once per month.

In a parenting dispute between unmarried parents of a young child, the court considered whether the father’s access should remain supervised at a supervised access centre and addressed child support.

Allegations concerning the father’s sexual behaviour and a psychological assessment suggesting prudence regarding unsupervised caregiving tasks were examined.

The court found no evidence that the father posed a risk to the child and concluded that continued highly restricted access was not in the child’s best interests.

Applying the Children’s Law Reform Act and the principle of maximum contact, the court ordered a graduated expansion of supervised access outside the supervised access centre with conditions preventing the father from bathing or changing the child.

The court also ordered prospective child support based on the father’s modest income and declined retroactive support.

Following a four‑day family law trial concerning custody and access to a child, the court determined the successful party's entitlement to costs.

The applicant had been substantially successful at trial and sought recovery of legal costs under Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules.

The court considered the parties’ conduct, settlement offers, and the factors under Rule 24(11), noting the absence of bad faith and the financial limitations of the parties.

While the applicant claimed approximately $18,529, the court fixed costs at a reduced amount.

The respondents were ordered jointly and severally to pay the applicant $10,000 in costs.

A biological father sought custody of his three‑year‑old child, who had primarily been raised by the child’s great‑grandmother and later jointly cared for by extended relatives.

The mother supported the relatives’ custody claim and acknowledged she was presently unable to parent due to substance abuse and instability.

The court applied the best interests of the child analysis under s. 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, considering the child’s established bonds with caregivers, the father’s relationship with the child, and competing long‑term care plans.

Independent assessments from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer and a home study in Iowa supported the father’s parenting capacity and proposed family environment.

Despite the stability of the relatives’ current arrangement, the court held that the child’s long‑term interests favored placement with the biological father and ordered that the child relocate to live with him in Iowa, with structured ongoing contact for the Canadian caregivers.

The applicant children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking Crown wardship of a child with complex medical needs.

The child was apprehended after the father, who had primary care, was arrested for domestic assault and exhibited untreated mental health issues.

The child's health had significantly deteriorated in the father's care but stabilized in foster care.

The mother sought placement of the child with her, but the court noted her history of instability, daily marijuana use, and the child's medical requirements.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, determining the child was in need of protection and ordering Crown wardship with access to the mother at the society's discretion.