Joan Rothwell

This decision concerns an uncontested family law trial in which the applicant mother, Narjes Ebrahimi, sought a divorce, a parenting order, and retroactive and ongoing child support based on an imputed income for the respondent father, Mohammad Ali Muradi, who has been absent since 2016.

The court granted a final parenting order in the best interests of the child, C.M., and a divorce, but denied the request for child support due to lack of evidence regarding the father's income or whereabouts.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that three children (I.D., A.D., H.D.) were in need of protection and an order for their placement with the maternal grandmother under Society supervision.

The court found the children to be Inuit based on their strong self-identification and cultural participation, despite some uncertainty regarding ancestral connection.

The court granted the summary judgment, finding the children in need of protection due to the mother's failure to protect them from a father with sexual offense charges, her emotional dysregulation, and health issues affecting her parenting capacity.

The court ordered the children's placement with the maternal grandmother for six months under Society supervision, emphasizing the augmented best interests test for Indigenous children under the Federal Act.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for access to her granddaughter, the respondent sought full indemnity costs of $5,968.

The court found that while the applicant acted unreasonably in bringing the motion close to trial, she did not act in bad faith.

Applying the principles of reasonableness and proportionality under the Family Law Rules, the court rejected the claim for full indemnity costs, deducted fees unrelated to the motion, and awarded the respondent partial indemnity costs fixed at $2,250.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a six-month supervision order to return two children to the care of their mother, with scheduled contact for the father.

The mother and her new partner had taken significant steps to address addiction and child protection concerns, and the father, though unable to care for the children, supported their return to the mother.

The court found no genuine issue for trial and granted the summary judgment, holding that returning the children to the mother and allowing contact with the father was in their best interests, particularly given their Indigenous heritage.

The applicant, a paternal grandmother, brought a motion for parenting time with her granddaughter, whom she had not seen for 19 months.

The motion was filed 48 days after a court order had granted exceptional permission to bring it within 45 days.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the late filing was not excused given the strict conditions of the prior order.

Furthermore, it was deemed not to be in the child's best interests to re-establish temporary contact so close to trial, especially given a significant factual dispute regarding the cessation of contact, which the trial judge would be better equipped to resolve.

The respondent father brought a motion to increase his access time with his two children, remove the supervision requirement, and secure holiday access.

The applicant mother opposed the holiday access due to COVID-19 concerns related to a visiting family member, and opposed unsupervised access citing the father's lifestyle and past behaviour.

The court held that the mother could not unilaterally cancel scheduled access due to family plans and ordered the holiday visit to proceed.

The court also found insufficient evidence to justify long-term supervised access, ordering a gradual phase-out of supervision over several weeks.

The court addressed a father's interim motion to relocate with the children from Ottawa to Hamilton for university, which was opposed by the mother.

The decision emphasizes the court's reluctance to disrupt the status quo on an interim basis, particularly in mobility cases, without a comprehensive child-focused inquiry.

The motion to relocate was dismissed, and the children were ordered to remain in their current city pending a final adjudication.

No interim custody order was made, but the children's primary residence remained with the father, and the mother's existing access schedule was maintained.

A child protection trial involving three Indigenous children apprehended by a children’s aid society following earlier permanent guardianship orders involving seven siblings in another province.

The court examined allegations of parental instability, lack of financial and medical supports, transient living conditions, and the significant influence of the father over the mothers.

Expert psychological evidence raised concerns about the father’s paranoia and control over the family dynamic, and whether the mothers could protect the children from associated risks.

Although the mothers demonstrated appropriate parenting during supervised access, the court concluded the ongoing risks of physical and emotional harm remained significant.

Applying the Child and Family Services Act best‑interests framework and considering Indigenous cultural placement factors, the court ordered Crown wardship without access for the purpose of adoption.

A child protection proceeding concerning a newborn apprehended shortly after birth due to concerns about the mother's substance use, mental health, and ability to parent a special-needs infant.

The applicant society sought a declaration that the child was in need of protection and an order for Crown wardship without access for the purpose of adoption.

Expert psychiatric evidence concluded the mother lacked parenting capacity and would require years of intensive treatment and counselling before being able to parent safely.

The court found the child remained in need of protection and that the mother had not addressed the underlying concerns despite significant services offered.

Considering the statutory best interests factors, the court concluded that Crown wardship without access was necessary to ensure stability and permanency.

The moving party sought a reduction of substantial spousal support arrears and a decrease in ongoing support obligations following a long-term marriage.

He relied on fluctuating income, health issues, and employment changes as a material change in circumstances and proposed reduced arrears and lower monthly support.

The responding party opposed the motion, citing the moving party’s history of non-disclosure, failure to comply with court orders including life insurance and medical coverage, and prior unsuccessful variation attempts.

The court found no material change in circumstances and determined that rescinding arrears would be unjust given the moving party’s repeated non‑compliance.

The motion to reduce arrears and ongoing support was dismissed.