Gregory Best

The court considered a motion for summary judgment by the Family and Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville regarding the status of a child, S.T., under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Society sought an order finding that S.T. was not in need of protection in relation to his father, M.T., and requested that M.T. be granted custody and sole decision-making responsibility, with the mother, B.W., to have limited parenting time.

The court reviewed the history of the Society’s involvement, the child’s circumstances, and the legal principles governing summary judgment and status review applications.

The court found that S.T. was not in need of protection regarding M.T., but continued to be in need of protection regarding B.W., and granted the relief sought by the Society.

The mother brought a motion to change seeking ongoing child support for the parties' two teenage children.

The father argued he was unable to work because he was caring for his 27-year-old adult son from another relationship who was in crisis.

The court found the father was intentionally unemployed, as he failed to demonstrate that his adult son required 24-hour care that prevented him from working at least part-time.

The court imputed a part-time income of $15,000 to the father and ordered him to pay $250 per month in ongoing support and arrears.

The court also dismissed the father's claim that the Family Responsibility Office failed to properly account for wage garnishments and tax refunds.

The applicant mother sought a motion to change a 2010 final order regarding child support, seeking a new order for retroactive and ongoing child support.

The respondent father sought a retroactive downward adjustment of arrears based on his actual income and a reduction of arrears due to alleged uncredited garnishments, also claiming inability to pay ongoing support.

The court granted the retroactive downward adjustment of child support for 2010-2021 based on the father's actual income, which the mother agreed to.

However, the court found the Family Responsibility Office's (FRO) statement of arrears accurate regarding data entry issues.

The issues of further adjustment for alleged uncredited garnishments and ongoing child support were adjourned for a further hearing, with a temporary order for $100/month ongoing support and $50/month arrears payments continuing.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking a finding of primary residence and confirmation of the status quo since March 2020, when the children were placed in his care following child welfare involvement.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion seeking the return of primary residence or expanded parenting time.

The court found that a new status quo had been established and that there was no compelling evidence to disturb it pending trial, especially given the Office of the Children's Lawyer's recommendation.

The court ordered that the children remain in the primary care of the applicant, but granted the respondent expanded parenting time of three weekends per month.