Eric Vallillee

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 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.