Emma Dupuis

The applicant mother sought orders regarding parenting time and decision-making for the parties' two children.

The respondent father engaged in a prolonged campaign of coercive control, domestic violence, and false reporting to child protection agencies.

The court found the father's behaviour caused significant emotional harm and instability for the children.

Applying the best interests of the child test under section 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act, the court suspended the father's parenting time until he demonstrates a material change in circumstances through trauma counselling and a mental health assessment.

The court also issued a one-year restraining order against the father and awarded costs to the mother.

The respondent moving party sought summary judgment to dismiss the applicant estate's family law application for equalization.

The deceased spouse had instructed counsel to commence an equalization claim before his death, but no application was filed.

The court held that under the Family Law Act, the right to claim equalization is personal between spouses, and an estate cannot initiate a new claim for equalization after a spouse's death.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the estate's application was dismissed.

The respondent father brought a motion for contempt against the applicant mother, alleging she breached two final orders regarding joint decision-making and alternating weekly parenting time.

The court dismissed the motion regarding the decision-making order, finding it was not clear and unequivocal.

Regarding the parenting time order, the court found the mother deliberately and wilfully breached the order by failing to take concrete steps to require the 14-year-old child to visit his father.

However, the court declined to exercise its discretion to find her in contempt, noting the father had alternate adequate remedies available and a contempt finding would not advance the child's best interests.

The applicant child protection agency brought a motion for contempt against the respondent mother for refusing to comply with a temporary order granting the father supervised access that could transition to unsupervised access at the agency's discretion.

The mother refused to allow visits at the father's home despite investigations into abuse allegations being closed without charges.

The court found the mother in contempt, as the order was clear, her disobedience was deliberate, and the contempt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court also modified the prior order to implement a gradual schedule for unsupervised access at the father's home.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion for the immediate return of the parties' nine-year-old daughter to Ottawa to resume in-person access.

The mother had previously relocated the child to Tiny Township without consent and, in breach of a prior court order, failed to return the child, citing the COVID-19 pandemic as justification.

The court found the mother in breach of the prior order and rejected her attempt to use the public health emergency as an excuse to unilaterally relocate.

The motion was granted, and the mother was ordered to return the child to Ottawa with police enforcement.