Jennifer Howard

M.L. was sentenced for multiple intimate partner violence offences, including five counts of assault, one sexual assault, two mischief under $5000, and one uttering threats.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the prolonged nature of the abuse, the presence of a child during some assaults, and the breach of trust.

Mitigating factors included M.L.'s lack of prior criminal record, community support, and rehabilitative potential.

The court imposed a global sentence of 15 months custody (11 months additional jail after pre-sentence credit) and 24 months probation.

An exemption from the Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order was granted, finding it grossly disproportionate given M.L.'s rehabilitative prospects and low risk of re-offending.

The parties separated when their child was 10 months old, and the mother unilaterally retained the child in Alberta while the father returned to Ontario.

The mother sought sole decision-making and supervised parenting time for the father, alleging he posed a risk of sexual harm to the child.

Following a 4-day trial and expert psychiatric evidence concluding the father posed no risk, the court dismissed the mother's claims of abuse.

The court ordered joint decision-making with divided tie-breaking authority, terminated the supervision requirement, and ordered that the child reside in Ontario with the father to maximize contact with both parents.

This is a costs endorsement following motions regarding parenting time and decision-making for a child.

The applicant and respondent both sought costs.

The respondent sought substantial indemnity costs totaling over $83,000, while the applicant sought $7,500.

The court applied Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, considering factors such as the importance and difficulty of issues, parties' behaviour, and proportionality.

While the respondent was largely successful on the main issue in the July 2020 motion, the court noted both parties contributed to the acrimony and excessive materials.

The court awarded the respondent $25,000 in all-inclusive costs, significantly less than sought, reflecting the applicant's partial success on an earlier motion and the principle of proportionality.

The Applicant and Respondent brought motions and cross-motions concerning interim parenting time and parental decision-making for their two-year-old son.

The Applicant sought sole custody and a restricted parenting schedule for the Respondent, while the Respondent sought equal shared parenting time and joint custody.

The court rejected the Applicant's argument for maintaining the status quo, emphasizing the child's right to maximum contact with both parents.

The court ordered a gradual expansion of the Respondent's parenting time, culminating in a 2-2-3 rotating weekly schedule, and declined to make an order regarding parental decision-making at that interim stage.

The Applicant Father brought a motion to alter an interim parenting order regarding custody and access, alleging new instances of the Respondent Mother's inappropriate discipline and alienation.

The Respondent Mother also brought a motion for spousal and child support.

The court dismissed the Father's motion to alter the existing interim parenting order, finding he failed to demonstrate "compelling reasons" for a change, and that the evidence presented, including CAS notes, was not sufficiently reliable at an interim stage.

The court emphasized the need for stability for children and that such issues should be determined at trial.

The court also set out interim access arrangements for the Mother following the impending sale of the matrimonial home, contingent on her securing suitable accommodation.

In a family law motion, the respondent father sought permission to take the parties’ six‑year‑old child to Cuba for a family wedding.

The mother opposed the trip, alleging concerning behaviour by the father and raising questions about his mental stability and parenting judgment.

The court noted that the serious allegations could not be resolved on conflicting affidavit evidence without cross‑examination.

Applying the best interests of the child and taking a cautious approach in light of unresolved allegations, the court concluded that the child should not travel internationally at that time.

The motion was dismissed, without prejudice to the father seeking reimbursement of the child’s airfare.