Frances M. Wood

The applicant brought a motion seeking to amend his Response to a Motion to Change to include relief regarding child support and financial disclosure, and to set aside a prior order that allowed the respondent to amend her pleadings.

The court dismissed the motion to amend, finding that the applicant's concerns related to the enforcement of an existing disclosure order, which should be pursued separately under Rules 1(8) and 26 of the Family Law Rules rather than delaying the pending parenting issues.

The court also dismissed the motion to set aside the prior order, concluding that the applicant's inability to file responding materials would not have changed the outcome.

Costs of $2,700 were awarded to the respondent.

The applicant Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a final order placing a medically complex child in Extended Society Care.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing she could care for the child with appropriate supports and that the Society relied heavily on hearsay evidence from third-party service providers.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues for trial regarding the mother's ability to provide a viable plan of care, the reasons for the breakdown in relationships with service providers, and whether the Society fulfilled its statutory duty to assist the mother.

The maternal grandparents brought a motion to be added as parties to a family law proceeding to seek a contact order with their grandchildren.

The applicant father opposed the motion, while the respondent mother consented.

The court reviewed the test for adding parties under Rule 7 of the Family Law Rules and concluded that the grandparents should be added as parties solely for the purpose of pursuing their claim for a contact order, but not to participate generally in the parents' broader parenting dispute.

The Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion in a child protection proceeding.

The Society filed voluminous materials, including 16 affidavits and a 35-page single-spaced factum, without seeking leave to exceed practice direction limits.

The self-represented respondent grandmother had not received the updated materials until the morning of the hearing.

The court adjourned the motion, emphasizing that procedural fairness requires the Society to file focused, relevant evidence so that a self-represented litigant has a meaningful opportunity to respond.

The Society was ordered to file amended, page-limited materials.

The respondent on a motion to change brought an interim motion seeking retroactive child support from 2020 through 2025 and an order compelling the applicant father to finalize the divorce.

The court held that despite the general discouragement of interim motions within motions to change, the threshold was met where the material facts regarding the child's residence and the parties' incomes were largely undisputed.

Interim child support orders were made for 2021 through 2025 based on Line 15000 incomes, without prejudice to the final hearing.

The court also ordered the father to proceed with the divorce within 30 days, finding no legal disadvantage warranting delay and rejecting the argument that the divorce should await resolution of overpayment claims.

The father brought a motion to change seeking a custody reversal and child support after the mother engaged in a concerted campaign of parental alienation.

Despite previous court orders for reunification therapy, the mother refused to comply.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer introduced expert and social worker evidence indicating the child's extreme views against the father had intensified, including threats of self-harm.

The court concluded that while the mother was responsible for the alienation, a custody reversal would likely fail and cause further harm to the child.

The child was ordered to remain in the mother's primary care with independent counselling, and the father's motion was dismissed.

A children's aid society brought a child protection application under the CYFSA.

During argument on a temporary care and custody motion, a dispute arose about whether the child should be found to be a First Nations child under Ontario Regulation 155/18.

Although the child did not self-identify and neither parent identified the child as Indigenous, the child's half-sibling and that sibling's biological father self-identified as First Nations.

The court adopted a broad, purposive interpretation of the regulation and found that section 1(c)(i) applied, holding that the self-identification of a half-sibling was sufficient to establish the child as a First Nations child for the purposes of the CYFSA, engaging the Federal Act's placement priority provisions.

The temporary care and custody hearing was adjourned for further argument.

A trial concerning child and spousal support following the separation of a long-term marriage.

The primary issues involved imputing income to both parties.

The respondent husband was employed by Canada Post until his discharge in 2020, after which he operated a courier business and subsequently worked for Ford Canada before ceasing employment.

The applicant wife had been out of the workforce for approximately 20 years at separation and subsequently received Ontario Works and ODSP benefits.

The court imputed income to the respondent for child support purposes and determined that the applicant was entitled to spousal support on both compensatory and non-compensatory bases at the mid-range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

This decision concerns an application by J.D.S. to adopt A.A., a child with complex medical and developmental needs, and the subsequent motion by P.E., the biological father, to withdraw his previously given consent to the adoption.

The court reviews the statutory framework under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and applies the best interests of the child test.

The court finds that P.E. had capacity and was fully informed when he gave consent, and that his later dissatisfaction with parenting time arrangements does not vitiate that consent.

The court concludes that it is not in A.A.'s best interests to permit P.E. to withdraw his consent, given her strong bond with J.D.S. and her siblings, her special needs, and the lack of insight or planning by P.E. regarding her care.

The Openness Agreement remains in effect, and the parties are ordered to communicate via a parenting app.

This family law trial addressed decision-making authority, parenting time, and child support for the parties' daughter.

The mother sought sole decision-making authority and primary residence, while the father requested the same and sought to reduce his child support obligations.

The court found that the father had engaged in coercive control, unilateral decision-making, and verbal abuse, which were contrary to the child's best interests.

Ultimately, the court granted the mother sole decision-making authority and primary residence, maintained the father's alternate weekend parenting time under strict conditions, and ordered retroactive and ongoing child support based on imputed incomes.

The Applicant sought various final orders at an uncontested family law trial.

The court declined to grant the final orders, finding that the Respondent, who was served while attending criminal court, may not have appreciated the significance of the proceedings and had not been served with the trial materials.

Additionally, the court found the Applicant's supporting affidavit to be procedurally and evidentiary deficient.

Consequently, the court granted temporary primary residence of the child to the Applicant, ordered the Applicant to serve a fresh affidavit and draft order, and adjourned the uncontested trial.