Jenna Beaton

A 13-year-old child commenced a child welfare proceeding against her parents and the local children's aid society, seeking a finding that she and her siblings were in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act.

The father moved to dismiss the application as an abuse of process and for failure to raise a genuine issue for trial.

The court found that the child had commenced the proceeding under the influence of her mother as a tactical measure to interfere with concurrent Superior Court custody proceedings.

The court dismissed the application, finding it was an abuse of process and raised no genuine issue for trial.

In a high-conflict family law trial, the applicant father sought sole custody of the parties' three children, alleging severe parental alienation by the respondent mother.

The court found overwhelming evidence that the mother had alienated the eldest child and that the younger children were at risk.

The court granted sole custody to the father and ordered the immediate implementation of a Phase II reunification program, which included a 90-day no-contact period between the children and the mother.

The father was also permitted to relocate with the children to Toronto.

Additionally, the court imputed an income of $40,000 to the mother for support purposes, ordered her to pay child support, ordered the father to pay spousal support, and resolved various net family property issues, including the valuation and treatment of a jointly leased cottage.

In a high‑conflict custody dispute, the father brought an emergency motion seeking a declaration that the Superior Court custody trial should proceed notwithstanding a child protection application commenced in the Ontario Court of Justice by a child through counsel.

The mother cross‑moved seeking adjournment, involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, and consideration of the children’s wishes.

The court found the protection proceeding appeared to be a tactical attempt to delay the scheduled custody trial and concluded the best interests of the children required prompt resolution of the family dispute.

The court held the protection application did not automatically stay the custody trial and declined to adjourn the trial.

However, the court declined to stay the protection proceeding itself, leaving that determination to the Ontario Court of Justice.

The respondent husband brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the applicant wife's claims to set aside their separation agreement.

The wife alleged that the husband failed to provide adequate financial disclosure regarding his business interests and income, and that she signed the agreement under duress.

Applying the framework from Hryniak and the amended Family Law Rule 16, the court found that there were genuine issues requiring a trial regarding both the adequacy of the husband's financial disclosure and the wife's allegations of duress.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and the matter was directed to proceed to trial.

The parties separated following a trip to Jamaica in December 2010, during which the applicant alleged the respondent attempted to kill her by slashing her throat, while the respondent alleged the applicant attacked him with a knife.

The respondent was acquitted in a Jamaican criminal trial.

In this family law trial, the court could not determine on a balance of probabilities who attacked whom.

Given the extreme conflict, the court awarded sole custody to the applicant but ordered increasing, unsupervised access for the respondent, culminating in a week-about shared parenting schedule.

The court also addressed child support, found the applicant in contempt for denying telephone access, and ruled that the applicant's family cottage qualified as a matrimonial home.

Following a family law trial addressing custody, access, child support, spousal support, and equalization, both parties sought costs.

The court applied Rules 18 and 24 of the Family Law Rules and found that success at trial was divided.

Although the respondent obtained sole custody, the order was conditional and the court expressed concerns about the respondent’s behaviour and its effect on the children’s relationship with the applicant.

Neither party satisfied the requirements of Rule 18(14) for full recovery of costs based on offers to settle.

Considering the complexity of the issues, the parties’ conduct, the offers exchanged, and the best interests of the children, the court declined to award costs to either party.

In a family law trial involving custody, access, child support, spousal support, and property equalization following separation, the court addressed allegations that one child had become alienated from the father in a high‑conflict parenting dispute.

The court found the child was moderately to severely estranged from the father but concluded there was no deliberate campaign of parental alienation by the mother, though her emotional conduct contributed to the deterioration of the relationship.

Sole custody was granted to the mother with strict conditions requiring counselling and participation in a reunification program, while maintaining significant parenting time for the father and equal time with the younger child.

The court ordered child support based on a shared parenting arrangement for one child and primary residence with the mother for the other, awarded time‑limited spousal support, and ordered equalization of net family property in favour of the father.