Eva Casino

The parties separated after a six-year marriage characterized by the applicant father's coercive control and family violence.

The father sought equal parenting time and sole decision-making for education and healthcare, while the respondent mother sought primary parenting time, joint decision-making, and spousal support.

The court found that the father's history of violence significantly impacted the mother and child, causing severe anxiety.

The court awarded the mother sole decision-making authority and primary parenting time, with the father receiving alternating weekends and conditional summer time.

The father was also ordered to pay full Table child support and spousal support at the high end of the range due to the economic consequences of his abusive conduct.

This was a family law trial addressing parenting issues for a 9-year-old child.

The mother sought primary residence and sole decision-making, alleging the father's history of domestic violence.

The father sought primary residence and sole decision-making, alleging the mother's parental alienation and mental health issues.

The court found a pattern of physical and psychological abuse by the father, witnessed by the child, and that the mother's actions, while at times interfering, were largely a result of this trauma, not parental alienation.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, ordered both parents to engage in counselling, and mandated reunification therapy for the child and father, with costs shared 25% mother and 75% father.

The parties separated and initially agreed to a graduated shared parenting schedule.

Following an incident where the mother was charged with assaulting one of the children (charges later withdrawn), the father sought sole decision-making and primary residence.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) recommended sole custody to the father with limited parenting time for the mother.

The court rejected the OCL's recommendations, finding the investigation flawed and the father's unilateral actions concerning.

The court ordered a week-on/week-off shared parenting schedule and a parallel parenting regime, granting the mother final decision-making authority over health and the father final decision-making authority over education.

The applicant mother sought to change an existing shared parenting and joint decision-making regime, requesting primary residence and sole decision-making authority.

The mother argued that the father had historically been financially oppressive and that the children, particularly the 13-year-old, had expressed a preference to live primarily with her.

The court relied heavily on an Office of the Children's Lawyer report which recommended maintaining the status quo.

The court found that the children's hearsay statements via text message were not sufficiently reliable to establish a change in preference.

The court dismissed the mother's claims for primary residence and sole decision-making, maintaining the week-about shared parenting schedule and joint decision-making, while ordering counselling for the eldest child to ascertain her views and preferences going forward.

The applicant father sought to vary a prior custody order under s. 17 of the Divorce Act to obtain sole custody of the parties’ child, relying heavily on an Office of the Children’s Lawyer report recommending a transfer of custody.

The court found the OCL report unreliable because key witnesses were not properly interviewed with interpreters and relevant medical and daycare information was not considered.

Evidence showed the child was thriving in the respondent mother’s care and that allegations of medical neglect and safety concerns involving the mother’s friend were unsupported by the evidence and prior investigations.

The court also found the father not credible and concluded that no material change in circumstances had been established within the meaning of s. 17(5) of the Divorce Act.

Even if a material change had been proven, transferring custody would not have been in the child’s best interests.