Dr. Robert Saltstone

The father (M.H.) appealed orders from the Ontario Court of Justice in a child protection application, including the striking of his answer and the award of custody to the mother (M.D.) with supervised access for him.

The father had refused to participate in virtual proceedings due to religious beliefs.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that while the motion judge did not err in denying an adjournment, she erred in interpreting or applying Rule 1(8.2) of the Family Law Rules by striking the father's answer without considering if the delay would be unfair, and by failing to fully consider the child's best interests when making the final custody order, relying on an incomplete Statement of Agreed Facts.

The matter was remitted to the Ontario Court for an expedited hearing.

The applicant father sought increased unsupervised access to the child, Anthony, after relocating to Ontario.

The respondent mother opposed, seeking termination or reduction of access, citing the child's anxiety and past allegations against the father.

The court considered two Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) reports, which recommended increased unsupervised access.

The court found the respondent's concerns about anxiety and past allegations unsubstantiated or addressed.

A temporary order was made to gradually increase the father's unsupervised access, including overnights, and outlined specific terms for exchanges, communication, and parental responsibilities.

The respondent brought a motion to change a 2009 final order regarding custody, access, and support for his youngest child, Abbey, due to alleged parental alienation by the applicant.

The court found a material change in circumstances, including the applicant's failure to comply with the order and her alienating behaviour.

Expert evidence confirmed severe parental alienation.

The court granted the respondent sole custody of Abbey, terminated the applicant's access except for therapeutic purposes, and reduced the applicant's spousal support, citing her lack of effort towards self-sufficiency and the need to protect Abbey's best interests.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion under section 54 of the Child and Family Services Act seeking an order requiring the respondent father to undergo a psychosexual assessment, including phallometric testing, based on allegations of sexual abuse of two girls from a prior relationship made over a decade after the alleged incidents.

The father opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the statutory and regulatory prerequisites for ordering such an assessment had not been satisfied, that the motion was premature, and that the proposed assessment lacked sufficient evidentiary foundation and utility in a forensic context.