Emily O’Keefe

This decision addresses two contested motions within a Status Review Application under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto (CCAST) sought production of third-party records related to the Father from Correctional Services Canada, the Ministry of the Solicitor General, Toronto South Detention Centre, Toronto Police Service, and the Attorney General of Ontario.

The Father opposed the production on privacy and procedural grounds.

The court ordered production of records from the Toronto Police Service and Correctional Services Canada, with adjournments for records related to ongoing criminal charges and those from the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Toronto South Detention Centre pending further submissions.

The Father also sought supervised access to the Child via telephone and video calls.

The court varied the final access order on a temporary basis, allowing supervised access with conditions including consent for CCAST to communicate with the detention centre and discretion to suspend access if necessary.

The decision balances the Child’s best interests, the Father’s rights, and the safety concerns arising from the Father’s incarceration and criminal charges.

The Applicant Mother brought a motion to strike the Respondent Father's pleadings and prohibit future filings due to his failure to pay child support arrears, non-payment of costs, and abusive behaviour, including vile text messages and breach of a restraining order.

The Respondent Father had also relocated to Tanzania while seeking primary residency of the child.

The court struck the Father's Notice of Motion due to his exceptional conduct of relocating to another continent while seeking residency.

The court also ordered that the Father may only file responding pleadings upon bringing his child support arrears and outstanding costs awards into good standing.

Costs of $15,000 were awarded to the Mother.

The applicant sought to set aside a cohabitation agreement under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act, arguing the respondent failed to disclose significant assets and that she did not understand the agreement's nature or consequences.

The court found the applicant had sufficient general knowledge of the respondent's assets and understood that the agreement protected his property and waived spousal support.

The court declined to set aside the agreement and further held that its terms successfully ousted the equalization provisions of the Family Law Act by substituting a division based on legal ownership.