Elizabeth Anne Roberta Julien-Wilson

This trial concerned parenting and child support arrangements for the parties' four-year-old child.

The mother sought primary residence and sole decision-making, and child support.

The father sought primary residence and sole decision-making, and no child support.

The court found it in the child's best interests to be in the primary care of the father with sole decision-making responsibility, citing the mother's emotional fragility, contempt for the father, unwillingness to cooperate, and attempts to alienate the child from the father.

The court also imputed income to the father for retroactive child support from the date of separation but terminated ongoing child support due to the father having primary residence and not seeking support from the mother.

The Children's Aid Society (CAS) brought a motion to temporarily place a child (X) with the father's girlfriend (V.P.), or alternatively, arrange graduated access.

The mother opposed this, seeking temporary placement with the maternal grandmother or graduated access.

The court dismissed both motions for temporary placement, finding neither party met the onus under subsection 113(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, to demonstrate that X's best interests *required* a change in temporary placement given the imminent trial and need for stability.

However, the court ordered increased access for X to both V.P. and the maternal grandmother, with the CAS exercising discretion, to facilitate deeper relationships and gather evidence for trial.

The court clarified that X would be the access holder and V.P. and the maternal grandmother would be access recipients, without granting them party status, to avoid derailing the upcoming trial.

This motion, brought by Wahgoshig First Nation and supported by Native Child and Family Services of Toronto (NCFS), sought to transfer a child protection proceeding from Toronto to Timmins.

The child, nearly 9 years old, had resided in Wahgoshig First Nation for 8 years under a Customary Care Agreement, which was recently terminated.

Kunuwanimano Child & Family Services (Kunu) opposed the transfer, arguing Toronto was the proper venue and raising concerns about service capacity.

The court found a preponderance of convenience favored Timmins, given the child's long-term residence, connections, and the location of current protection concerns.

Despite NCFS initially lacking territorial jurisdiction to file in Toronto, the court, relying on the Family Law Rules, ordered the transfer to Timmins to ensure the child's best interests and avoid legal limbo.

The applicant sought to vary a consent order for spousal support and matrimonial home carrying costs, citing undue hardship and a material change in circumstances due to income loss and alleged hidden income by the respondent.

The court applied the material change test from L.M.P. v. L.S. and found that the applicant failed to discharge the onus of proving a material change on a balance of probabilities.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant sought a final restraining order against the respondent and determination of access to their two children.

The respondent had a history of verbal and physical abuse toward the applicant, including assault and uttering threats for which he was convicted.

After the applicant ended the relationship in December 2013, the respondent repeatedly breached probation and restraining orders by attempting to contact her and harass her.

The respondent sought unsupervised access to the children, while the applicant sought access to remain in her discretion with supervision.

The court found the applicant credible and the respondent lacking insight into his abusive behavior.

The court made the restraining order final and granted custody to the applicant with access to the respondent in the applicant's discretion.

The appellant appealed an Ontario Court of Justice decision declining jurisdiction over custody and support issues concerning a child residing with the father in British Columbia.

The lower court held the child was habitually resident in British Columbia due to the mother’s consent and acquiescence to the child’s relocation.

The Superior Court found the trial judge misapprehended the evidence, concluding that the mother’s consent for the child’s travel was conditional and time-limited and that she did not acquiesce to the child’s continued residence outside Ontario.

The court held that the child remained habitually resident in Ontario under s. 22 of the Children’s Law Reform Act.

The appeal was allowed and the matter was directed to proceed in the Ontario Court of Justice on an urgent basis.

In a family law proceeding, the respondent mother brought a motion to strike the father's motion to change a final child support order due to the father's failure to pay prior cost orders and ongoing support arrears.

The court reviewed earlier cost orders requiring the father to pay $3,000 in costs in 2002 and $3,000 in costs in 2003, both with interest.

The court found that neither order had been satisfied and rejected the argument that payments through the Family Responsibility Office toward support arrears could be treated as payment of costs.

The court ordered the father to pay the outstanding costs plus interest directly to the mother before the scheduled trial management conference.

The court further directed that if the amounts were not paid by the specified date, the father's motion to change would be struck and he would be barred from bringing further motions until the costs were fully paid.

In a status review application under the Child and Family Services Act, the court considered whether a child should be made a Crown ward for adoption or returned to parental care.

The Society sought Crown wardship without access based on concerns about the mother's alcohol consumption.

The court found that while the mother had consumed alcohol excessively during the relevant period, the risk could be adequately managed through an order placing the child in the legal custody of the non-biological father (who had acted as the child's father since birth) under Society supervision, with strict conditions regarding the mother's abstinence and monitoring.

A child protection trial concerning a child born in 2011 who was apprehended shortly after birth due to serious concerns about the mother's parenting capacity (ADHD, FASD, prior Crown wardship of first child), the father's significant cognitive disabilities and criminal history (charged with aggravated assault on a baby he was babysitting), and the paternal grandmother's extensive child protection history involving abuse and neglect.

The court found the child to be in need of protection under section 37(2)(b)(i) of the Child and Family Services Act due to risk of physical harm.

The father and paternal grandmother sought placement of the child in their care under Society supervision, but the court rejected both plans as inadequate.

The child was made a Crown ward without access to facilitate adoption, as this was found to be the least intrusive option meeting the child's best interests.

Cross-motions in a family law proceeding addressed interim financial arrangements, support obligations, and the disposition of the matrimonial home.

The court found it untenable for the respondent spouse to remain in the home due to the financial burden placed on the applicant and the parties’ overall debt situation.

A temporary order was issued directing the immediate listing and sale of the matrimonial home, establishing procedures for showings and offers, allocating responsibility for certain household expenses, and setting temporary child support and conditional spousal support.

The order also addressed division of household contents, treatment of joint debts, and restrictions on mobility and further custody motions pending the Office of the Children’s Lawyer report.

Cross-motions in a family law proceeding addressed interim financial arrangements, support obligations, and the disposition of the matrimonial home.

The court found it untenable for the respondent spouse to remain in the home due to the financial burden placed on the applicant and the parties’ overall debt situation.

A temporary order was issued directing the immediate listing and sale of the matrimonial home, establishing procedures for showings and offers, allocating responsibility for certain household expenses, and setting temporary child support and conditional spousal support.

The order also addressed division of household contents, treatment of joint debts, and restrictions on mobility and further custody motions pending the Office of the Children’s Lawyer report.