Elly Freund-Bell

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.

A motion to change custody and access arrangements for a child born in 2010.

The applicant mother sought sole custody with primary residence after having addressed historic substance abuse issues.

The respondents (paternal grandparents and father) opposed the motion, arguing that the current joint custody arrangement with the grandparents as primary caregivers should be maintained.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on the child's worsening behavioral and emotional difficulties, the lack of concerted efforts to address his needs, and the acrimony between caregivers.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother with structured access to the father and grandparents, finding that the hostility between the grandparents and mother was harmful to the child and that the mother had successfully addressed her historic concerns.

Prospective adoptive parents sought custody of a newborn child whom they had taken into their care shortly after birth in Nunavut pursuant to an informal arrangement with the biological parents.

The court raised serious concerns about the irregular process, including lack of personal service, absence of corroborating evidence confirming the biological parents’ identities, incomplete police record checks, and insufficient information regarding a prior child protection investigation.

The court also noted potential legal issues under the Child and Family Services Act regarding private placement of a child for adoption by non‑relatives.

Given the child was already residing in Ontario and decisions were required for the child’s care, the court granted interim interim custody on a without prejudice basis.

The applicants were ordered to obtain additional documentation, effect proper personal service on the respondents, and provide corroborating evidence from the Children’s Aid Society before the matter could proceed.