Joanna Harris

Society sought temporary care and custody of two children pursuant to s. 94(2)(d) of the CYFSA on the basis of severe chronic malnutrition, failure to thrive, rickets, hypothyroidism, and persistent parental non-compliance with medical recommendations.

The younger child fell below the zero percentile for weight, was diagnosed with life-threatening hypocalcemia, vitamin D deficiency, and iodine-deficient hypothyroidism attributable to prolonged exclusive breastfeeding and a restrictive vegan diet lacking essential micronutrients.

Parents demonstrated heavy mistrust of the medical system, repeatedly delayed or cancelled bloodwork, developmental assessments, and specialist appointments, and minimized the severity of the conditions.

The older child also presented with zinc and vitamin D deficiency, low carnitines, low amino acids, and bone changes suggestive of metabolic conditions.

Court found supervision order insufficient given parental lack of insight and the urgent daily nutritional and medical intervention required.

The father brought a motion alleging that the mother had failed to comply with multiple court orders regarding parenting time and related matters spanning from 2017 to 2025.

The child, age 10, was at the centre of a dispute involving allegations of parental alienation, relocation attempts, and non-compliance with therapy orders.

The court found repeated and ongoing breaches of parenting orders and declined to exercise discretion in favour of the non-complying mother.

The court granted the majority of the father's motion, ordering compliance with parenting time schedules, family therapy participation, and various parental covenants designed to facilitate the child's relationship with both parents.

This is a costs decision following an urgent motion concerning parenting time.

The father sought to modify parenting arrangements and brought an ex parte motion with serious allegations against the mother.

The mother was successful in the underlying motion and sought costs of $20,000.

The father argued the amount was disproportionate and proposed $5,000, citing financial hardship from supervised access costs and child support obligations.

The court found the father's conduct was aggressive, litigious, and hovered close to bad faith.

The father failed to attempt settlement before commencing litigation and made unverified serious allegations.

The court ordered the father to pay costs of $18,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable at $3,000 per month beginning September 1, 2025.

This decision addresses an urgent motion concerning parenting time for a 10-month-old child amidst serious allegations of family violence and mental health concerns.

The court carefully analyzed the evidence, including affidavits, text messages, audio recordings, and medical reports, applying the best interests test under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court emphasized the importance of an expansive approach to evidence in family law, especially in cases involving family violence, and ruled on the admissibility of contested evidence.

Ultimately, the court ordered supervised parenting time for the Father, citing concerns about his conduct, mental health, and the safety of the child and Mother, and declined to grant a without prejudice order.

This decision addresses a motion concerning medical decision-making authority, specifically the authority to consent to vaccinations for children placed in the care of their Paternal Aunt under a temporary order pursuant to the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (CYFSA).

The court confirms that while the Paternal Aunt has temporary care and custody, a specific order permitting her to make medical decisions including vaccinations is appropriate and necessary to satisfy medical providers.

The court emphasizes the remedial purpose of the CYFSA and judicial notice of vaccine safety and efficacy, placing the onus on the objecting party to justify refusal of vaccination.

The Father’s request for adjournment was denied due to lack of evidence, and the Paternal Aunt was granted authority to consent to vaccinations in accordance with medical advice.

This Ontario Court of Justice decision addresses a motion concerning parenting time between J.N. (Father) and A.H. (Mother) for their toddler child born in 2023.

The court considered the best interests of the child under the Children's Law Reform Act, focusing on parenting time allocation amidst allegations of family violence and criminal charges against both parents.

The Father sought progressively increasing unsupervised parenting time, supported by supervised visits through Aboriginal Legal Services.

The court emphasized the child’s cultural heritage, the importance of both parents’ involvement, and the need for a conflict-free environment.

The decision orders a staged increase in parenting time with conditions including no hair cutting by the Father, virtual home inspection by Aboriginal Legal Services, and child-focused communication between parents.

This decision concerns a first appearance following the warrantless removal of three children to a place of safety by Native Child and Family Services of Toronto (NCFS).

The court granted a temporary without prejudice order placing the children in NCFS care, with fully supervised access for the parents.

The decision highlights extensive historic child protection concerns, including multiple reports of physical and emotional abuse, family violence, and unsafe living conditions spanning several years.

The court emphasized the failure of NCFS to bring the matter to court earlier despite ongoing risks and injuries to the children, underscoring the importance of judicial oversight in child protection matters.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer was appointed to represent all three children to ensure their interests are protected.

This case conference endorsement addresses a dispute over the paternity of a child where the putative father and his identical twin brother are both alleged fathers with 99.99% certainty from prior paternity tests.

The Ontario Court of Justice considered the jurisdictional limits under the amended Children's Law Reform Act and the All Families Are Equal Act, concluding that the Ontario Court of Justice lacks jurisdiction to determine parentage or grant tort damages related to the case.

The court declined to make further orders and suggested transferring the matter to the Superior Court of Justice.

The court also discussed the high cost of specialized paternity testing required to distinguish between identical twins and the issue of cost-sharing among the parties.

This decision addresses two contested motions within a Status Review Application under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto (CCAST) sought production of third-party records related to the Father from Correctional Services Canada, the Ministry of the Solicitor General, Toronto South Detention Centre, Toronto Police Service, and the Attorney General of Ontario.

The Father opposed the production on privacy and procedural grounds.

The court ordered production of records from the Toronto Police Service and Correctional Services Canada, with adjournments for records related to ongoing criminal charges and those from the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Toronto South Detention Centre pending further submissions.

The Father also sought supervised access to the Child via telephone and video calls.

The court varied the final access order on a temporary basis, allowing supervised access with conditions including consent for CCAST to communicate with the detention centre and discretion to suspend access if necessary.

The decision balances the Child’s best interests, the Father’s rights, and the safety concerns arising from the Father’s incarceration and criminal charges.

The Applicant (Mother) brought a motion under the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act (FOAEAA) to obtain information about the Respondent's (Father's) employer and income tax returns to establish a child support order.

The Father was in default of prior disclosure orders and failed to attend the hearing.

The court granted the Mother's application, finding that the requirements of FOAEAA sections 7, 8, and 10 were met, and that the order would not jeopardize anyone's safety.

The court authorized a court official to seek the information from the Minister of Justice, with confidentiality provisions to be determined upon receipt of the information.