Jennifer S. Daudlin

The father brought a motion to vary an interim parenting schedule, which was dismissed.

The mother sought costs of $11,063.26 as the successful party.

The court found the mother was the successful party and rejected the father's request to reserve costs to the trial judge.

However, the court reduced the quantum sought, noting the motion was not complex and the hourly rates claimed for counsel and law clerks were excessive for the nature of the proceeding.

Costs were fixed at $5,000, payable within 90 days, and were not made enforceable through the Family Responsibility Office as they did not relate to support.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion to vary a temporary care and access order regarding four children.

Previously, the two older children were placed with the mother under supervision, and the two younger children with the paternal grandmother.

The Society sought to vary the placement of the older children after the mother breached a condition prohibiting her partner from residing in the home or having contact with the children.

The court found a material change in circumstances.

One older child was placed with the paternal grandmother, while the other older child, who expressed strong views against living with the paternal grandmother due to past disclosures, was placed in the temporary care of the Society.

Access arrangements were also varied to occur primarily in Toronto, with one visit per month in the Niagara region.

The court also criticized the Office of the Children's Lawyer for failing to meet with the older children for several months during a critical period.

The father brought a motion to change a 2018 final order for child support, seeking a retroactive and prospective reduction based on his enrollment in a college program and receipt of OSAP funding.

The mother opposed the reduction and brought a cross-motion seeking an increase in support based on the current minimum wage.

The court applied the framework from Colucci v. Colucci and found that neither party established a material change in circumstances.

The court held that the father's transition from social assistance to OSAP funding did not demonstrate a decrease in his earning capacity below the minimum wage imputed in the original order, nor did it establish an increase in capacity to justify the mother's request.

Both the motion and cross-motion were dismissed, and the original child support order remained in effect.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a temporary, without-prejudice parenting order to expand his parenting time and alter exchange protocols.

The court found that the temporary order had crystallized into a status quo, requiring the father to demonstrate a material change in circumstances.

The court concluded that the father failed to establish a material change, as the alleged increase in conflict did not occur at parenting exchanges and the existing structure already minimized parental interaction.

Furthermore, the court held that the proposed variation was not in the best interests of the child, who has special needs, particularly while an assessment by the Office of the Children's Lawyer was ongoing.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant father brought an urgent interim motion to change a 2018 final parenting order, seeking sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of the 12-year-old child.

The father alleged a material change in circumstances based on the child's exposure to sexualized online content and the parents' inability to agree on protective measures.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the father failed to meet the stringent test for a temporary change to a final order, as the evidence did not establish compelling and exceptional circumstances requiring immediate intervention, and the child's immediate needs were being addressed through previously ordered counselling and the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The applicant father sought primary residence and opposed the respondent mother's proposed relocation to Mexico with their one-and-a-half-year-old child.

The mother, who had precarious immigration status in Canada and could not work, sought to relocate to Mexico where she had family support and employment prospects.

The court found that the child's primary residence should remain with the mother, who had been the primary caregiver since birth.

The court permitted the relocation, finding it was in the child's best interests given the mother's need for stability and the father's inconsistent exercise of parenting time and escalating conflict.

The mother was granted sole decision-making responsibility, and the father was granted regular virtual parenting time and in-person parenting time when travelling to Mexico.

On a temporary parenting motion involving an infant child, the court considered whether sole or joint decision-making responsibility should be ordered where the parents were in high conflict and subject to criminal release conditions limiting communication.

Applying the best interests of the child analysis under the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court held that joint decision-making was unworkable because of the present communication barriers, persistent conflict, and a pattern of excessive, accusatory communications amounting to family violence.

The court granted the mother temporary sole decision-making responsibility, imposed structured communication terms, and authorized her to apply for the child’s passport and other government documents without the father’s consent, while limiting the passport relief to issuance and reapplication only.

The father’s cross-motion for joint decision-making and non-removal-related relief was dismissed without prejudice, and the mother was held entitled to costs.

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 mother and father separated after moving to Canada from Algeria.

The father subsequently returned to Algeria and remained there, failing to pay child support.

The mother sought sole authority over the children's government documents, permission to travel internationally without the father's consent, and child support based on imputed income.

The court granted the mother sole authority for Canadian documents and permitted her to travel to Hague Convention countries without consent.

The court imputed a minimum wage income to the father, finding him intentionally underemployed, and ordered him to pay retroactive and ongoing child support, as well as proportionate section 7 expenses.

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.