Eric M. Vallillee

The respondent brought a motion seeking an order under s.13(1) of the Children’s Law Reform Act declaring he is not the parent of the applicant's child, and for summary judgment dismissing the applicant's claims for child support.

The respondent relied on two negative DNA test results.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the DNA test reports were inadmissible as evidence because they were not introduced pursuant to a court order under s.17.2(1) of the CLRA, nor were they accompanied by an affidavit from the expert who prepared them, or compliance with the Family Law Rules regarding expert opinion evidence (e.g., expert qualifications or acknowledgement of duty).

The dismissal was without prejudice, allowing the respondent to bring a further motion with proper evidence.

The applicant brought a motion seeking an interim restraining order, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and primary residency of the children.

The respondent brought a countermotion seeking a nesting order or exclusive possession, and parenting time.

The court lifted the existing interim restraining order, finding the applicant's fears were not objectively legitimate to warrant the order.

The court granted the applicant exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, finding a nesting order inappropriate due to ongoing conflict.

The court ordered a parenting schedule providing the respondent with regular overnight parenting time and dismissed the applicant's request for interim sole decision-making as premature.

The Children's Aid Society brought a child protection application regarding a two-and-a-half-year-old child.

Both parents had serious histories of violence for which they were found not criminally responsible, but had since received absolute discharges from the Ontario Review Board and were successfully managing their mental health conditions.

The Society and the parents sought an order returning the child to the parents' care subject to a 12-month supervision order, which the Children's Lawyer opposed.

The court found the child in need of protection due to the catastrophic risk if either parent relapsed, but concluded it was in the child's best interests to be returned to the parents' care with strict supervision terms, as the risk of relapse was low and well-monitored.

The Children's Aid Society initiated a Status Review Application concerning two children, S.W. (17) and S.H. (6), who were previously under a supervision order with their mother.

The Society sought termination of the order for S.W. and extended society care (later custody to kin) for S.H. The mother and S.H.'s father opposed, seeking return of the children.

The court found both children remained in need of protection due to the parents' persistent instability, mental health issues, and lack of engagement.

It ordered the termination of the order for S.W. (who was doing well with paternal family in New Brunswick) and granted custody of S.H. to the kin caregivers (L.B. and Q.B.) in New Brunswick, with incidental orders for access and authority to obtain identification without parental consent.

The parties brought competing motions for interim relief regarding parenting time, child and spousal support, and the sale of the jointly-owned family home.

The court ordered that the father's parenting time with the daughter remain subject to her wishes due to trauma from witnessing domestic violence, but granted in-person and virtual parenting time with the son.

The court imputed $30,000 in partnership income to the father due to inadequate financial disclosure, fixing his income at $120,000, and ordered him to pay interim child and spousal support.

The court also directed that the family home be listed for sale by July 2022.

The applicant sought costs of $3,272.91 following a successful motion regarding a parenting schedule.

The respondent argued that no costs should be awarded due to her limited financial means, or alternatively, costs should be fixed at $500.

The court found that the applicant was the successful party, had made reasonable offers to settle, and that the respondent's failure to respond to settlement efforts was unreasonable.

After deducting time entries unrelated to the motion and considering the respondent's ability to pay, the court ordered the respondent to pay costs of $2,000.

The applicant sought an interim restraining order against a respondent, Christopher Lee Sommerville, under the Children's Law Reform Act, alleging sexual abuse of children and criminal ties.

The court dismissed the request for a restraining order, finding insufficient evidence to establish reasonable grounds for fear for safety.

However, the court, in the children's best interests, issued a contact order under s. 28(1)(c)(i) of the Act, prohibiting the respondent from direct or indirect contact with the children or the applicant, while an investigation by the Children's Aid Society was ongoing.

The applicant mother brought a motion for the return of the parties' six-year-old child from the respondent father in Nova Scotia to her care in Ontario.

The father had retained the child after a summer visit, citing concerns about the mother's new partner, who had a criminal record and history of substance abuse.

Following a previous interim order requiring evidence of the new partner's rehabilitation, the court reviewed the new evidence, which demonstrated the partner's prosocial behavior, sobriety, and positive relationship with the child.

The court found that the minimal risk of relapse was outweighed by the benefit of returning the child to his primary caregiver and ordered the child returned to the mother's care.

The Children's Aid Society brought a temporary care hearing concerning the placement of two young children who were taken to a place of safety after their mother passed away.

Two competing plans for permanent care were presented: one by the children's maternal aunt residing in Georgia, and another by a police officer who responded to the initial call and his spouse.

The Society supported the maternal aunt's plan.

The court evaluated both plans, finding them both to be of high quality.

Ultimately, the court determined that it was in the children's best interests to be placed in the temporary care and custody of their maternal aunt, emphasizing the statutory preference for placement with a relative and the familial continuity she could provide.

The applicant mother sought sole custody, child support, and restricted access for the respondent father, while the father sought joint custody and shared time.

The court found that joint custody was not in the children's best interests due to the parents' inability to communicate and the history of conflict.

The mother was awarded sole custody.

The father, who had struggled with alcohol abuse following his sister's death, was granted a graduated access schedule subject to a strict sobriety condition.

The court also imputed an annual income of $13,000 to the unemployed father for child support purposes, finding him intentionally underemployed, but declined to order him to obtain life insurance due to lack of evidence regarding insurability and ability to pay.

The parties, who share equal residential parenting time of their four-year-old son, brought competing motions regarding his enrollment in Junior Kindergarten.

The mother sought to enroll the child at a school near her residence, where the child had already established a connection through his half-sister.

The father sought enrollment at a school near his residence, citing financial and transportation difficulties.

The court applied the best interests of the child test and ordered that the child be enrolled in the mother's proposed school, finding that the established routine and connection to the school would provide stability and reduce inconvenience for the child.