Duncan Crosby

The applicant children's aid society and the respondent mother each brought motions regarding the temporary care and custody of two children.

The children had been removed from the mother's care due to her erratic and aggressive behavior and placed with their respective fathers.

The court applied the test under section 94 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, finding reasonable grounds to believe the children would be at risk of harm if returned to the mother.

The court ordered that the children remain in the temporary care of their fathers.

The applicant brought a motion seeking orders to file Trial Scheduling Endorsement Forms (TSEF), secure life insurance benefits, and for leave to bring a motion for interim spousal support despite a settlement conference having already occurred.

The court granted the consent orders regarding the TSEF and life insurance.

However, the court denied leave for the interim spousal support motion, finding that the applicant failed to adequately explain the significant delay in bringing the claim and noting that the matter should proceed directly to trial.

The parties resolved ongoing child support on consent but disputed retroactive child support for 2018.

The applicant argued his 2018 income should not include a mandatory pension payout, while the respondent's income should be averaged due to her sick leave.

The court excluded the portion of the pension payout reinvested into an RRSP but included the remainder, finding the applicant failed to establish unfairness.

The court used the respondent's actual 2018 income and ordered the applicant to pay retroactive child support based on a set-off of the parties' incomes.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a final order placing the child in the custody of the father and stepmother.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking the return of the child to her care.

The court found that the mother continued to struggle with undiagnosed health issues that impeded her ability to care for the child, and that the child's health and behavior had significantly improved in the care of the father and stepmother.

Applying the framework for summary judgment in child protection proceedings, the court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and granted the society's motion, ordering custody to the father and stepmother with supervised access for the mother.

The applicant father brought a motion alleging the respondent mother breached a previous court order requiring her to return the children to the Eganville area and re-establish residency within a 25-km radius of the local school's catchment area.

The court found that the mother's residence at a cabin 37 km away did not technically breach the order, but noted concerns about her continuing ties to Ottawa.

The court declined to impose sanctions but issued supplementary directions requiring transparency about the children's whereabouts and overnight stays.

The respondent father brought a motion for a stay of enforcement pending an appeal of a temporary order that changed primary parenting responsibility of the parties' 7-year-old daughter to the applicant mother.

The father argued the motion judge erred in refusing an adjournment, lacked jurisdiction, and failed to maintain the status quo.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding the motion judge's refusal of an adjournment was entitled to deference, the jurisdictional argument lacked merit under rule 15(28), and compliance with the temporary order would not cause irreparable harm while the balance of convenience favoured leaving the child in the mother's care pending trial.

The applicant brought a motion seeking a finding of contempt against the respondent for removing the parties’ child to Australia and remaining there for an extended period contrary to the spirit and effect of a prior custody order.

Although the original judgment permitted occasional extended trips to Australia, the court found that the respondent’s prolonged stay and failure to provide return information constituted deliberate and wilful disobedience.

The court concluded that the elements of contempt were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

As a remedial measure, the court granted the applicant compensatory access time and addressed travel concerns, while emphasizing that family law contempt remedies should focus on promoting compliance rather than punishment.

Costs of $7,000 were awarded to the applicant, recoverable as a credit against child support through the Family Responsibility Office.