Katharina Janczaruk

This decision resolves high-conflict parenting, decision-making, and relocation issues between Aslam Patel and Rabiya Patel.

The court finds that the children’s best interests are served by residing primarily with Rabiya, who is granted sole decision-making authority.

Aslam’s claims of parental alienation are rejected.

The court orders a restricted, reviewable parenting schedule for Aslam, a no-contact order in lieu of a restraining order, and permits Rabiya’s relocation to Pickering.

Extensive evidentiary rulings are made regarding affidavits, exhibits, and recordings.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for parenting time with his two children, having been denied contact by the respondent mother since April 2021 following an alleged domestic assault.

The mother opposed in-person contact, citing the outstanding criminal charges and allegations of family violence.

The court applied the best interests of the child test under the Divorce Act, finding that the uncorroborated allegations did not justify denying the children time with their father.

The court ordered temporary supervised parenting time for the father, gradually stepping up to unsupervised access.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion to vary an existing access order, seeking unsupervised access for V.F. with his children S.F. and L.F. The motion was supported by V.F. and the mother (T.M.) but opposed by W.O. (father of other children with T.M.) and the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.

The court reviewed expert assessments regarding V.F.'s risk as a convicted child pornography offender and the mother's protective capacity.

The motion was dismissed, as the court found the Society had not met its onus to demonstrate that unsupervised access was in the children's best interests, citing concerns about the untested nature of the evidence, inconsistencies in V.F.'s disclosures, and the mother's lack of insight into the risks.

Following a trial in writing on family law issues, the applicant father sought full indemnity costs of $73,208.59.

The court found the father was largely successful on the main issues and the mother's behaviour was unreasonable, particularly regarding the choice of school and spousal support.

However, the father did not beat his offer to settle on all issues, precluding full indemnity costs.

The court also found the father's bill of costs to be excessive for a trial in writing with no cross-examination.

The court awarded the father partial indemnity costs fixed at $20,000 all inclusive.

The parties proceeded to a trial in writing to resolve issues regarding parenting, child support, spousal support, and equalization.

The court ordered the child to attend the father's proposed school and daycare, finding it in the child's best interests.

The court imputed an income of $50,000 to the mother based on her earning capacity in the film industry.

Given the shared parenting arrangement and the parties' respective financial circumstances, the court ordered no child support payable by either party.

The mother's claim for spousal support was dismissed as she failed to prove entitlement.

The father was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $5,034.34.

This is a child protection trial concerning two children: N.B., a 10-year-old girl, and M.M., an 18-month-old girl.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto sought protection orders for both children based on risk of physical harm due to parental neglect and inability to provide adequate care.

The mother (Y.M.) and M.M.'s father (S.O.) opposed the applications, seeking return of the children to their care.

N.B.'s father (Y.B.) did not participate and was found in default.

The court found both children to be in need of protection.

N.B. was placed in the custody of kin caregivers with supervised access to the parents.

M.M. was placed in extended society care for adoption with limited supervised access to the parents.

The court found the parents lacked the stability, consistency, and reliability necessary to adequately parent the children, and that their poor functioning, dishonesty, housing instability, and lack of insight into protection concerns made return of the children inappropriate.

The appellant, a father in child protection proceedings, appealed a Superior Court decision that upheld an Ontario Court of Justice order varying his access to children from unsupervised to supervised pending trial.

The Court of Appeal found that the Superior Court order was interlocutory in nature, dealing with interim access pending trial, and therefore the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The court declined to transfer the matter to the Divisional Court, finding that section 19(4) of the Courts of Justice Act precluded such an appeal.

The appeal was quashed for lack of jurisdiction.

A child protection trial under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act concerning a child apprehended on July 22, 2012.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto sought a finding that the child was in need of protection and a crown wardship order with no access.

The parents opposed the application and sought return of the child to their care, alternatively with supervision.

The court found the child was in need of protection due to abandonment by the mother, emotional unavailability of the father, exposure to domestic violence, excessive physical discipline, and neglect of the child's physical and emotional needs.

The court made a crown wardship order and granted the child (rather than the parents) a right of access to the parents once monthly for two hours, fully supervised by the society.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change seeking the respondent father's contribution to special and extraordinary expenses for their child under section 7 of the Child Support Guidelines.

The expenses claimed included retroactive travel and medical costs for the child's residential eating disorder treatment in Utah, future tutoring expenses, orthodontic treatment, and horseback riding lessons.

The court found that the child's medical condition necessitated out-of-country treatment and that most claimed expenses qualified as section 7 expenses.

The court ordered the father to contribute 85% of the allowable expenses based on the proportional income of the parties.