Jane O’Neill

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a final consent order, seeking primary residence and sole decision-making authority over the parties' six-year-old child, who had been diagnosed with ADHD and ODD.

The respondent father opposed and sought primary residence and sole decision-making authority.

The court found that the father was better equipped to manage the child's behavioural issues and provide stability.

The court ordered primary residence to the father during the school year, with joint decision-making authority where the father has the final say.

The court also ordered the father to pay retroactive child support and the mother to pay ongoing table support based on an imputed income.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion during the COVID-19 court suspension to dispense with the respondent father's consent for their child's counselling and to suspend the father's shared parenting time due to alleged failures to physically distance.

The father brought a cross-motion to enforce the existing week-about parenting order.

The court found the matters urgent but dismissed the mother's request to suspend access, finding no evidence the father was ignoring public health directives.

The court ordered the resumption of the shared parenting schedule and authorized the child's counselling, requiring both parents to participate in the intake process.

The applicant sought costs after a motion where success was divided.

The court considered factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, including the divided success, the importance of the issue to the respondent, and the applicant's offers to settle, which, despite minor non-compliance, could have avoided the motion.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $2,000 in all-inclusive costs to the applicant, considering the respondent's limited means and proportionality.

The respondent father brought a motion for equal shared parenting and an order that the child's residence remain in Ottawa.

The applicant mother brought a cross-motion seeking sole custody and permission to relocate with the child to Cornwall to live with her fiancé.

The court applied the framework from Gordon v. Goertz and determined that it was in the child's best interests to remain in Ottawa on an interim basis, noting the child's established routine, extended family, and the lack of detailed evidence regarding the proposed move.

The court ordered that the child's primary residence remain in Ottawa, maintained the existing parenting schedule, and ordered the father to pay interim child support.

A 15-year-old sought an order requiring an internet provider to identify the creator of a fake sexualized profile and asked to proceed anonymously with a publication ban.

The Court held that objective harm to children from cyberbullying can justify anonymity without individualized evidence of specific harm.

It allowed anonymous proceedings to protect the child’s privacy and access to justice.

It declined to ban publication of non-identifying profile content because open court and press freedom outweighed further restriction once identity protection was in place.

The Court also set aside prior costs orders against the appellant and made no costs order in the Court.