Jennifer S. Daudlin

A temporary care and custody motion under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 involving four children (ages 9, 8, 4, and 1) with a history of exposure to intimate partner violence, non-accidental injury, adult conflict, and caregiver instability.

The court determined that both parents posed risks requiring removal from their sole care.

The older children were placed with the mother under supervision with strict conditions, while the younger children were placed with the paternal grandmother under supervision.

All parties received supervised access with the children, with the mother's partner prohibited from any contact.

The decision emphasizes the need for meaningful behavioral change and compliance with supervision orders before unsupervised access or return of children can be considered.

This decision addresses the imputation of income for child support purposes where the father was found intentionally underemployed and failed to provide full financial disclosure, including income from a professional corporation and rental properties.

The court imputed income to the father based on his earning capacity, rental income, and corporate benefits, rejecting his lower reported income and job search claims.

The mother’s income was accepted as disclosed.

The court also considered the appropriate sharing of special and extraordinary expenses under section 7 of the Child Support Guidelines and declined to order life insurance as security due to lack of evidence but ordered a charge on the father’s Ontario properties to secure support obligations given his relocation to Jamaica and non-compliance history.

The Ontario Court of Justice considered a motion by Mohammed Duni seeking the return of his children from Orillia to Toronto, along with primary residence and sole decision-making authority.

The mother, Ahlam Said, had relocated the children without notice, and the father argued this was an improper disruption of the children's habitual residence.

The court analyzed the best interests of the children under the Children’s Law Reform Act, including factors related to family violence, the impact of the father's delay in pursuing the motion, and the children's stability and routines.

The court declined to immediately change decision-making responsibility but ordered the children to remain in Orillia until the end of the school year, with increased parenting time for the father, and scheduled an expedited trial for a final determination.

This decision addresses a contested motion to change a final parenting order involving allegations of parental non-compliance, child retention, and concerns about family violence.

The court carefully analyzed the material change in circumstances test under the Children’s Law Reform Act and applied the Supreme Court of Canada’s two-stage test from Gordon v. Goertz.

The father’s motion to change was dismissed due to his breaches of the final order, including wrongful retention of the child and failure to pay child support.

The mother’s motion was granted, resulting in supervised parenting time for the father, restrictions on his ability to travel internationally with the child, and an expanded restraining order including a no-contact provision except for urgent child-related matters.

The court emphasized the child’s best interests, prioritizing stability, safety, and the child’s emotional well-being, while providing a structured plan for the father to regain unsupervised parenting time through demonstrated compliance and therapy.

This decision addresses complex parenting and child support issues between Steven Thomas Skiffington and Christine Lucy Parsons (now MacDougall) concerning their three children.

The court incorporated the parties' agreement on decision-making and regular parenting time, then resolved outstanding disputes on summer parenting schedules, travel arrangements, transportation responsibilities, and potential parenting time changes upon relocation.

The court also determined retroactive child support obligations, including imputation of income due to unreported cash earnings, and apportioned section 7 expenses.

The judgment emphasizes the best interests of the children, the impact of family violence, and the necessity of clear, structured parenting terms.

It provides detailed guidance on travel consent, transportation sharing, and arrears repayment, balancing fairness and the parties' financial realities.

The applicant father brought a motion to determine the child's school registration, proposing École élémentaire Pierre-Elliott Trudeau (PET), while the respondent mother sought registration at École élémentaire La Mosaïque (La Mosaïque).

The court also addressed preliminary evidentiary challenges and the mother's pattern of unilateral decision-making.

The court found it was in the child's best interests to attend La Mosaïque for the 2024-2025 school year, emphasizing linguistic and cultural needs, and the practical advantage of proximity to the mother's residence and work for stability.

While the mother's choice of school was upheld for the year, her unilateral conduct was criticized, and the court issued temporary orders expanding the father's parenting time and mandating joint consultation on significant issues, with the school choice for future years remaining an issue for trial.

This trial concerned decision-making responsibility and parenting time for the parties' 10-year-old daughter.

The Applicant mother sought sole decision-making and supervised parenting time for the Respondent father, transitioning to unsupervised upon completion of programs.

The father sought joint decision-making and immediate unsupervised parenting time, plus reimbursement for supervised access costs.

The court found the father engaged in extensive family violence against both the mother (abusive communication, controlling behavior) and the child (corporal punishment), and demonstrated a lack of credibility and accountability.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and ordered unsupervised parenting time for the father on alternating weekends, contingent on his cessation of corporal punishment.

The father's claim for reimbursement was dismissed, and the court determined further programs for the father were unlikely to be effective given his lack of insight.

The Father brought a motion to expand his parenting time with his 18-month-old son, MJ, from supervised twice-weekly visits to a graduated schedule leading to unsupervised overnight parenting time.

The Mother brought a cross-motion for a section 30 assessment or Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) referral, and to maintain supervised parenting time with only a slight increase in frequency.

The court dismissed the Mother's request for an assessment/OCL referral, finding no compelling clinical issues and that the Mother's concerns were largely unsubstantiated.

The court granted the Father's motion for a graduated expansion of parenting time, transitioning from supervised to unsupervised, finding it to be in the child's best interests to foster a meaningful relationship with both parents and that the Mother's restrictive approach was unfounded.

The Respondent Father brought a motion to change a temporary order, seeking to expand his parenting time from supervised to unsupervised.

The Applicant Mother consented to expanded time but opposed unsupervised access until specific conditions related to the Father's sobriety and transparency were met, citing his history of domestic violence and alcohol misuse.

The court found a material change in circumstances, but, considering the Father's past conduct and lack of full transparency regarding recent sobriety lapses, ordered a cautious, gradual expansion of supervised parenting time, including a phase for community access, but denied immediate unsupervised access.

The Father was ordered to continue various sobriety programs and provide ongoing disclosure.