Justice Sheilagh O'Connell

The applicant mother sought an urgent motion to suspend the respondent father's face-to-face access with their seven-and-a-half-year-old child during the COVID-19 pandemic, seeking to replace it with video conferencing.

The child suffers from asthma and severe allergies.

The father's last access visit occurred on April 26, 2020, during which he took the child to multiple stores without proper protective equipment and without the required supervision of the paternal grandmother, contrary to the existing court order.

Following this visit, the child and household members exhibited COVID-19 symptoms and self-isolated for fourteen days.

The court found a material change in circumstances and determined that temporary suspension of face-to-face access was in the child's best interests, replacing it with weekly video access pending review at a case conference.

The applicant father brought a summary judgment motion seeking sole custody of two children and termination or supervised access for the respondent mother.

The respondent mother did not file responding materials and indicated she would not participate in the court process.

The court found no genuine issue requiring trial and granted the father sole custody.

The mother had a documented history of violence, anger management issues, and involvement with child protection authorities.

She had ceased all contact with the children since February 2019, refusing to see them unless they returned to her care.

The children had been in the father's continuous care for over four years and expressed preference to remain with him, with supervised access to their mother if any contact were to occur.

An urgent motion brought by the father seeking the immediate return of a five-month-old child to his primary residence in Woodbridge, or alternatively, an equal parenting schedule.

The mother brought a cross-motion seeking to maintain the child's primary residence with her in Toronto and to establish specified access for the father.

The court found that the father's characterization of the mother as having "absconded" with the child was inaccurate and unsupported by evidence.

The court determined that the child's best interests were served by maintaining stability with the primary caregiver (the mother) while developing a relationship with the father through regular and frequent contact.

The court rejected the father's demand for equal parenting time as inappropriate for a five-month-old infant and adopted a modified version of the mother's proposed parenting schedule, with provisions for gradual expansion after four weeks.

A child protection application brought by Native Child and Family Services regarding a newborn exposed prenatally to fentanyl.

The child was apprehended at birth and placed in the care of the society.

The matter proceeded on an urgent basis during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the first hearing conducted on April 3, 2020, and the second on April 14, 2020.

The mother, residing at a shelter, participated by telephone conference.

The court granted a temporary without prejudice order placing the child in the society's care and custody, with access at the society's discretion.

The matter was adjourned to May 4, 2020 to allow the mother time to retain counsel, prepare her answer and plan of care, and to allow the society to further explore the mother's proposed plan to relocate to Newfoundland with the maternal grandmother.

A mother sought specified access to her 15-year-old daughter and access to the daughter's school records.

The daughter, who had disclosed physical abuse by the mother and had run away from her care, consistently expressed that she did not wish to have contact with her mother.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that specified access was not in the child's best interests and that the child's school records were privileged under the Education Act and should not be disclosed.

The court emphasized the child's views and preferences, the mother's volatile and verbally abusive conduct, and the child's privacy interests.

The applicant mother sought an order requiring the respondent father to disclose unredacted U.S. income tax returns for 2017 and 2018, including his current wife's income information.

The father opposed disclosure, citing his wife's privacy interests.

The court balanced the privacy interests of the third-party spouse against the mother's need for accurate income information to calculate child support, particularly regarding tax rate differentials under the Child Support Guidelines.

The court found that disclosure of the wife's income was necessary to accurately determine the father's effective tax rate for gross-up calculations, as the father and wife filed joint returns with a blended tax rate.

The applicant father sought an order to enroll the three-year-old child in a full-time preschool program at K.B. Daycare, five days per week.

The respondent mother opposed the enrollment on her parenting days and sought transfer of the custody and access proceedings to the Superior Court of Justice to consolidate with her property and support claims.

The court granted the transfer to the Superior Court and ordered the child enrolled in the full-time program but exempted the child from attendance on the mother's parenting days, without prejudice to the father renewing the motion once the child starts junior kindergarten.

The court found that avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings and consolidating all family law issues in one court served the interests of justice, despite concerns about delay.

The respondent mother brought a motion to transfer a child protection application from the Ontario Court of Justice in Toronto to the Unified Family Court in Cayuga, Haldimand County.

The respondent father opposed the transfer, requesting instead that the case be transferred to Windsor or remain in Toronto.

The court considered the test for territorial jurisdiction transfer under section 91 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, applying the "preponderance of convenience" standard with the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration.

The court granted the mother's motion and ordered the transfer to Cayuga.

A motion was brought by counsel for a 15-year-old youth in a child protection proceeding to strike portions of child protection worker affidavits that referenced the youth's criminal history and police involvement.

The youth's counsel sought to rely on sections 118 and 119 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act to restrict access to youth criminal records.

The child protection agency opposed the motion, arguing it required access to this information for the child protection proceeding.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the information in the child protection affidavits did not constitute "youth records" as defined by the YCJA, as they were created for the child protection proceeding and were based on the workers' personal knowledge.

Additionally, even if the information were youth records, the child protection agency would be entitled to access under section 119(1)(n) of the YCJA as an agency engaged in the supervision or care of the youth under provincial child welfare legislation.