Joanne G. Beasley

In a child protection proceeding under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, the court rejected a jurisdictional challenge based on the five-day rule in s. 88, holding that the technical place-of-safety event occurred when the agency completed the placement assessment and documentation, not when the child was initially left with the paternal grandmother during the investigation.

The court nevertheless sharply criticized the agency's failure to make reasonable efforts to locate and engage the mother, its failure to serve her, and its procedural unfairness in excluding her from the process after intimate partner violence allegations arose.

Applying the temporary care and custody test, the court found a real risk of harm from the child's exposure to domestic violence and concluded that a temporary protection order was necessary.

The least disruptive placement consistent with protection, and the placement priority for an Indigenous child, favoured temporary placement with the mother under supervision rather than with the paternal grandmother.

The father received supervised discretionary access, with unsupervised access not to be considered until he began a PARS program or equivalent counselling.

The parties separated in 2022 and resolved parenting arrangements, leaving financial issues for trial.

The applicant sought to impute income to the respondent, a self-employed fire sprinkler technician, based on union wages.

The court found the respondent's business records unreliable and determined he was intentionally underemployed.

Applying the Drygala test, the court imputed income to the respondent based on 65% of the union hourly rate, reflecting his historical earnings pattern.

The court ordered ongoing child support and proportional sharing of section 7 expenses, calculated arrears, and dismissed the applicant's claim for spousal support due to lack of available income.

The parties brought cross-motions regarding temporary parenting arrangements for their two young children, including a newborn.

The father had unilaterally withheld the older child from the mother and insisted she exercise parenting time in his city, despite her recent childbirth and relocation to her parents' home.

The court terminated the previous nesting arrangement, finding it unworkable due to high conflict and criminal release conditions.

The court ordered primary residence with the mother, specified parenting time for the father, make-up time for the mother, and required the father to disclose medical records regarding his epilepsy.

The court declined to issue a police enforcement order.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change seeking updated child support, arrears, and a restraining order against the respondent father.

The court found a material change in circumstances and imputed income to the father, a long-haul truck driver who also operated a pesticide sales business, due to his unreliable financial disclosure and unreasonable deduction of personal expenses.

The court disallowed his Schedule III meal deductions for child support purposes and refused to deduct his corporate losses.

Child support arrears were fixed at $25,350.50.

The court also granted a restraining order against the father, finding his communications to be threatening and indicative of coercive control, and ordered him to complete a Partner Assault Response program.

The applicant mother and respondent father sought orders regarding parenting time, decision-making, and child support for their 4-year-old child.

The court ordered a 5-5-2-2 shared parenting schedule, finding it in the child's best interests as he was accustomed to shared care and was starting school.

Joint decision-making was ordered, with the mother having final say on education and the father on extracurriculars.

For child support, the court imputed income to both parents, including undeclared tip income for the mother, and ordered offset child support under section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines.

On a summary judgment motion in a grandmother-contact case, the court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

Applying Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules, the Hryniak summary judgment framework, and the best-interests analysis under s. 24(2) of the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court gave primary weight to the children’s safety, stability, and independently expressed preferences.

The court found that one child’s views were unequivocally opposed to contact, while the other was open only to highly structured and supervised contact after past boundary-violating conduct by the grandmother.

The motion to dismiss the application was granted in part: no contact was ordered for one child, limited supervised contact was ordered for the other, the request for a leave requirement was refused, and all remaining claims were dismissed.

In a child protection summary judgment motion arising from severe unexplained injuries and the death of one infant sibling while in parental care, the court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

Applying the cautious child-protection summary judgment approach under Rule 16 and the Hryniak framework, the court found the medical evidence overwhelming, the alternative explanations speculative, and the risk to the surviving children incapable of mitigation.

The court concluded one child continued to be in need of protection on status review and the other was in need of protection on the protection application.

Final orders placed one child in kin custody, the other in extended society care with an adoption plan, and provided supervised parental and sibling access.

On competing temporary family law motions concerning a 21-month-old child, the court addressed parenting time expansion, supervision, decision-making responsibility, an OCL referral, and child support.

The court rejected renewed allegations justifying supervised parenting time, but found a limited expansion to include one overnight per week was in the child's best interests, while deferring any automatic move to shared parenting.

Ongoing parental conflict, inconsistent routines, and concerns about communications with third parties supported a temporary order granting the mother sole decision-making responsibility with mandatory meaningful consultation and use of a parenting communication application.

The court also ordered a s. 112 OCL investigation and imputed minimum-wage-level income to the father, fixing child support arrears and ongoing monthly support.

This was a family law costs decision following a trial over mobility, parenting, and child support issues arising from a recognized extra-provincial divorce decree.

The court found the respondent had acted in bad faith by misrepresenting her address and the children's availability, interfering with parenting time, coaching the children, and making false allegations, thereby increasing the complexity and cost of the litigation.

Applying the Family Law Rules and appellate guidance on bad faith costs, the court held that full recovery was the starting point, but reduced the award to account for support-related costs and overall proportionality.

Costs were fixed at $120,000 with staged payment terms.

On cross-summary judgment motions in a family support dispute, the court found there was no genuine issue for trial and made final orders respecting child support, arrears, and section 7 expenses.

The court held that an adult child in the third year of a first university degree remained a dependent child and continued to attract support, with a summer formula while residing at home.

The payor's undue hardship claim under s. 10 of the Child Support Guidelines failed because the evidence did not establish exceptional, excessive, or disproportionate hardship or support a favourable household standard-of-living comparison.

Ongoing support was based on actual line 150 income, child support arrears were fixed, post-secondary section 7 arrears were ordered, and a forward-looking formula for special and extraordinary expenses was imposed.

The applicant sought a final restraining order arising from post-separation communications, social media postings, and third-party harassment by a former partner.

The court held that the applicant had reasonable grounds to fear for her physical, emotional, and financial safety under s. 46 of the Family Law Act, relying on repeated abusive communications, workplace interference, threats, and a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour.

The court treated the conduct as intimate partner violence and family violence, including cyber-bullying and retaliatory attacks on the applicant’s supporters.

A final restraining order was granted with no-contact and no-proximity terms, a prohibition on further online remarks, removal of existing posts, and a requirement that the respondent complete a Partner Assault Response program before bringing any motion to change.

An application to vary a Texas divorce decree recognized in Ontario under section 41 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The applicant father sought to impose a geographical restriction on the respondent mother's ability to relocate with the children outside the Region of Peel, Ontario, and sought child support.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on the mother's pattern of conduct including misrepresentation of her address, interference with parenting time, false allegations to police and child protective services, and coaching of children.

The court imposed a geographical restriction, ordered child support, and found the mother in breach of the order, awarding costs.

This case involves two motions to change a prior consent order regarding parenting and child support for a 13-year-old child.

The primary issues were the mother's proposed relocation from Mississauga to Burlington, the parenting schedule, decision-making responsibility, extracurricular activities, child support, and retroactive adjustments.

The court granted the mother's request to relocate, finding it in the child's best interests, and adjusted the parenting schedule to give the father three weekends per month and shared summer time.

The court declined to change decision-making responsibility, maintaining the mother's final say after consultation.

On financial matters, the court declined to impute income to the father but imputed a lower income to the mother based on OSAP receipt.

Child support was adjusted retroactively, and an overpayment by the father was credited.

Section 7 expenses were ordered to be shared proportionately to income.

This case involved multiple motions concerning parenting arrangements and decision-making for four children following the death of their mother/sister.

The applicant, the maternal grandmother, sought sole decision-making for one child and increased parenting time/reunification therapy for two others.

The respondents, including the great-grandmother and an extended family member, sought various parenting and decision-making orders.

The court ordered shared decision-making and a week-on-week-off parenting schedule for the youngest child between the grandmother and great-grandmother.

Sole decision-making and primary residence were granted to the extended family member for the two older children, respecting their views.

The court dismissed the request for reunification therapy, finding it not beneficial given the children's wishes and family dysfunction.

The Children's Aid Society's handling of the case was also criticized for failing to adequately address the children's emotional needs and views.

The court addressed motions concerning parenting arrangements for a young child, following the mother's unsubstantiated allegations of sexual abuse by the father's older children and concerns about the mother's repeated, intrusive physical examinations of the child.

Finding no evidence of abuse and concluding the mother's actions were harmful, the court transferred primary care to the father.

The mother's parenting time was ordered to be supervised, with prohibitions on her direct involvement in the child's personal care and from denigrating the father or his children.

Following a seven‑day trial concerning parenting, support, and related issues for a young child, the court determined that both parents were capable caregivers and that allegations of abuse against the father were not substantiated by professional evidence or child protection authorities.

Applying the statutory best‑interests framework, the court ordered a shared parenting regime transitioning from a 2‑2‑3 to a 2‑5‑5‑2 schedule with joint decision‑making responsibility and specific tie‑breaking mechanisms.

The court declined to impute income to either party, finding the mother’s limited employment justified by medical evidence and determining that funds advanced to the father by his parent were loans rather than income.

Child support was ordered using the shared‑custody formula, and spousal support was awarded for a fixed four‑year term.

Claims for retroactive spousal support and various additional relief were dismissed.