Katherine Mary Long

This protection application concerned three children whose mother was murdered.

The Children's Aid Society sought a finding that the children were in need of protection and final custody to their maternal aunt, with whom they had resided since their mother's death.

The respondent father (MH) of two of the children sought custody of his daughters.

The court found the children in need of protection due to physical harm (dental neglect), risk of physical harm (neglect of immunizations, exposure to domestic violence), risk of emotional harm (domestic violence, housing instability, risk of removal from long-term caregiver), and inadequate provision for care after the mother's death.

The court dismissed the father's bid for custody, finding his plan not viable and his credibility lacking, and granted final custody of all three children to the maternal aunt, emphasizing the children's best interests, continuity of care, and the aunt's demonstrated ability to meet their needs.

The court issued a supplementary endorsement to correct an oversight in a previous interim support order.

The original spousal support calculation failed to account for government funding that reduced the parties' section 7 expenses for their child's behavioural therapy.

After recalculating with the reduced section 7 expenses, the court increased the respondent mother's interim spousal support obligation from $1,966 to $2,980 per month and adjusted the parties' proportionate shares of the remaining unfunded expenses.

The applicant father brought a motion for interim child and spousal support, while the respondent mother brought a cross-motion to terminate previous preservation orders and for directions on property sale proceeds.

The court imputed the mother's income at $350,000, adjusting for unpaid business expenses and undeclared cash income.

The father's income was imputed at $50,000 due to intentional underemployment.

The mother was ordered to pay $3,722 in monthly child support and $1,966 in monthly spousal support.

The court also directed that the carrying costs of a jointly owned property be paid from the proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto (CAS) sought leave to withdraw its protection application concerning three children (G., Y., L.) after two years of litigation.

The father (M.H.) opposed the withdrawal, citing ongoing protection concerns related to the maternal aunt's (L.M.) care and alleged parental alienation.

The maternal aunt supported the withdrawal, having initiated a private Children's Law Reform Act (CLRA) application for sole decision-making responsibility.

The court dismissed the CAS's motion to withdraw, finding serious ongoing protection concerns, potential prejudice to the father and children in a private domestic proceeding, and that withdrawal would usurp the court's function to determine if the children are in need of protection.

The applicant father brought a motion for a temporary parenting schedule pending a section 30 custody and access assessment, seeking primary residence (8 out of 14 nights).

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion seeking primary residence with the father having only 16.5 hours of access per week and no overnights.

The parties continued to reside separate and apart in the matrimonial home, creating a toxic environment.

The court reviewed extensive affidavit evidence and text messages, finding both parents were actively involved in caring for the children, including one child with autism spectrum disorder.

The court gave little weight to surreptitious video recordings taken by the maternal grandparents.

Ultimately, the court ordered a temporary 50/50 equal time-sharing nesting arrangement where the children remain in the matrimonial home and the parents rotate in and out.

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.

In a child protection proceeding, the mother sought a second adjournment of the society's summary judgment motion after retaining new counsel.

The society and the child's counsel opposed the request, arguing that further delay would prejudice the child.

The court balanced the child's interest in a timely resolution against the mother's right to procedural fairness and adequate legal representation.

Finding that the mother had not intentionally delayed the proceedings and that the child was stable in kin care, the court granted a short adjournment to allow the mother's counsel to properly prepare.

In a child protection proceeding under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, the respondent mother sought an adjournment of a summary judgment motion scheduled for April 18, 2019.

The mother's previous counsel had withdrawn on February 27, 2019, leaving her unrepresented.

She retained new counsel on March 27, 2019, but counsel required additional time to prepare, citing incomplete disclosure from the Children's Aid Society and the complexity of the issues involved.

The court granted the adjournment despite opposition from the society and the child's counsel, balancing the mother's right to procedural fairness and adequate legal representation against the child's interest in expeditious resolution.

The court emphasized that while delay is generally unacceptable in child protection proceedings, fairness to both parent and child sometimes necessitates limited delays to ensure proper consideration of the case on its merits.

The Applicant brought a motion for interim exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and the Respondent brought a motion for an order compelling global mediation.

The court granted the Applicant's motion, finding that it was in the best interests of the children to remain in the only home they had known without disruption.

The court dismissed the Respondent's motion for global mediation, finding no agreement between the parties to globally mediate the matter.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support and interim disbursements.

The core issue was determining the respondent's income, as he claimed an income of $200,000 to $260,000 while the applicant argued it was over $1.4 million based on pre-tax corporate income and benefits.

The court found the respondent's Line 150 income was not the fairest determination and fixed his income at $707,500 for temporary support purposes, applying sections 16, 17, and 18 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The court also ordered the respondent to provide a fair market valuation of his business interests, finding them relevant to spousal support despite a marriage contract.