Francis Aheto-Tsegah

The father brought a motion to compel the mother to return to Ottawa with their two children or, alternatively, for primary residence.

The mother had relocated to Smith Falls without notice or consent, citing domestic violence and safety concerns.

The mother brought a cross-motion to remain in Smith Falls and reduce the father's parenting time.

The court found the mother was justified in moving without notice due to credible threats to her safety, exempting her from the notice requirements under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court ordered that the children's primary residence remain with the mother in Smith Falls, but dismissed the mother's request to reduce the father's weekend parenting time, maintaining the status quo.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion prior to a case conference seeking sole decision-making power, primary parenting responsibility, and supervised access for the respondent mother.

The father alleged that the mother's parents, who temporarily moved in with her, created an unsafe environment due to alcohol-fueled arguments and a recent homicide investigation at their property.

The court dismissed the motion, noting the lack of corroborating evidence from child protection agencies and finding that the conflicting affidavit evidence did not establish an emergency or that the requested orders were in the child's best interests.

In a child protection proceeding, the child protection issues were resolved on a final basis with the children remaining in the primary care of the father and a prohibition of contact between the children and the mother's spouse.

The father sought costs against the mother for delay and unreasonable conduct.

The court found that the mother's conduct in pursuing contact between the children and her spouse, who had a violent criminal history, was unreasonable and not in the children's best interests.

The court awarded costs of $7,800 to the father.

The children's aid society brought a motion for temporary care and custody of an infant who presented at the hospital with unexplained brain and retinal haemorrhages.

The parents claimed the injuries resulted from a fall off a couch, but medical professionals suspected non-accidental trauma.

The society apprehended the child after the parents failed to maintain a 24-hour supervision safety plan.

The court applied the unexplained injury principle and found reasonable grounds to believe the child was at risk of harm and could not be adequately protected by a supervision order.

The child was ordered to remain in the society's care pending trial, with access granted to the parents.

The respondent father brought a motion to change the parenting arrangement, which was largely dismissed.

The applicant mother sought costs of $25,000.

The court found the mother was the successful party and that the father's conduct in bringing the motion without proper evidence and ignoring a previous order was unreasonable.

The court awarded the mother $20,000 in costs on a partial indemnity basis, balancing the father's unreasonable conduct against his limited financial resources.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for temporary care and custody of two children who had been apprehended due to allegations of physical and emotional harm.

The parents admitted to using physical discipline but argued it was reasonable and permitted under the Criminal Code.

The court found credible and trustworthy evidence that the children were at risk of likely harm if returned home, citing a history of corporal punishment using objects and emotional abuse.

The court concluded that a supervision order would not adequately protect the children given the parents' lack of insight and refusal to cooperate with the Society.

The motion for temporary care and custody was granted.

In a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, the court determined whether an infant should remain with the mother or be placed with the father.

The evidence included a long history of child protection involvement concerning the mother, prior custody losses of several children, concerns about relationships exposing children to risk, and a parenting capacity assessment identifying ongoing issues with insight and responsibility.

The father had no protection history and had been caring for the child for approximately one year with support from extended family, during which the child was thriving.

The court found the child to be in need of protection while in the mother’s care pursuant to s. 37(2)(b)(g) of the Child and Family Services Act.

Considering the best interests factors under s. 37(3), the court ordered custody to the father without supervision and granted the mother conditional access.