Alcohol abuse

The applicant father sought unsupervised parenting time and shared decision-making responsibility for the parties' young child.

The respondent mother sought sole decision-making, supervised parenting time for the father, and a final restraining order due to a history of family violence, alcohol abuse, and coercive control.

The court found the father engaged in a relentless campaign of harassment and threatening behaviour against the mother, her counsel, and various service providers.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility, ordered the father's parenting time to remain supervised indefinitely, granted a final restraining order against the father, and ordered him to pay ongoing and retroactive child support.

Tyrone Joseph pleaded guilty to aggravated assault after stabbing Cassandra Cole multiple times, causing grievous injuries.

The court considered mitigating factors, including his guilty plea, genuine remorse, and efforts towards rehabilitation, alongside aggravating factors such as the severity and unprovoked nature of the attack, the profound victim impact, and the offender's cognate criminal record and alcohol abuse.

The decision applied "Downes credit" for stringent bail conditions, "Summers credit" for pre-trial custody (1.5:1), and "Duncan credit" for harsh detention conditions (lockdowns, triple-bunking).

A net sentence of 33¼ months imprisonment was imposed after deducting 502 days for bail and pre-trial custody credits, along with various ancillary orders.

The applicant mother brought a motion for primary care of the parties' three children following their separation and the impending sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent father sought a 2-2-3 shared parenting arrangement.

The court found that the father had an unacknowledged alcohol abuse problem that contributed significantly to parental conflict and posed a risk to the children.

Applying the best interests of the child test under the Divorce Act, the court granted primary care to the mother and ordered specified parenting time for the father without overnights, conditional on him not consuming alcohol before or during his parenting time.

The parties separated after an eight-year marriage.

The applicant mother struggled with alcohol abuse, leading to the respondent father becoming the primary caregiver for their three children.

The court maintained the current parenting schedule, with the children residing primarily with the father and the mother having parenting time 5 out of 14 days subject to alcohol monitoring.

The court also resolved complex financial issues, including valuing the father's security business on the date of marriage, determining the parties' incomes for support purposes, and addressing claims of unjust enrichment and resulting trust.

The father was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $882,115.16 and retroactive spousal support, while the mother was ordered to pay retroactive section 7 expenses.

The applicant father sought shared decision-making responsibility and equal parenting time for the parties' four children, two of whom have autism.

The respondent mother sought sole decision-making responsibility and defined parenting time, citing the father's history of alcohol abuse, criminal conduct, and family violence.

The court found the father's behaviour constituted family violence and that he lacked insight into his anger and its impact on the family.

The mother was granted sole decision-making responsibility.

The father was granted specified parenting time subject to strict conditions, including prohibitions on alcohol consumption and requirements to child-proof his residence.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection and an order for extended society care.

The court granted summary judgment on the finding that the child was in need of protection due to the parents' long-standing alcohol abuse and history of domestic violence.

However, the court dismissed the motion for summary judgment regarding the disposition, criticizing the society for 'document dumping' by filing 460 pages of unfocused affidavit evidence, which made it impossible to determine the best interests of the child without a trial.

The Children's Aid Society brought a protection application regarding a six-year-old Indigenous child due to the mother's severe and ongoing alcohol abuse.

The child had been residing with the maternal grandmother under a voluntary safety plan.

The Society and the father sought to have the child placed in the father's care, while the mother sought to have the child remain with the maternal grandmother under a supervision order.

The court found the child in need of protection and determined that the mother had 'charge' of the child prior to intervention.

However, returning the child to the mother was unsafe.

The court concluded it was in the child's best interests to be placed in the custody of the father, who offered long-term stability and supported the child's Indigenous heritage.

A final custody order was granted to the father, with supervised parenting time for the mother and contact time for the maternal grandmother.

The applicant mother and respondent father both brought motions for temporary custody of their two children and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The mother alleged the father had a severe alcohol abuse problem, supported by bank records showing extensive alcohol purchases and contemporaneous text messages from the father's sister.

The court found the father's alcohol consumption posed a risk to the children and granted the mother primary care, with the father restricted to supervised day access.

The court also granted the mother exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, prioritizing the children's best interests and need for stability.

The applicant mother sought sole custody, child support, and restricted access for the respondent father, while the father sought joint custody and shared time.

The court found that joint custody was not in the children's best interests due to the parents' inability to communicate and the history of conflict.

The mother was awarded sole custody.

The father, who had struggled with alcohol abuse following his sister's death, was granted a graduated access schedule subject to a strict sobriety condition.

The court also imputed an annual income of $13,000 to the unemployed father for child support purposes, finding him intentionally underemployed, but declined to order him to obtain life insurance due to lack of evidence regarding insurability and ability to pay.

The maternal grandparents applied for custody of their 9-year-old granddaughter following the death of the child's mother.

The father, who had access under a previous court order, also sought custody.

The court found that the child had lived primarily with her maternal grandparents and had a strong attachment to them, and that moving her would cause further trauma.

The court also noted the father's history of alcohol abuse and the high level of conflict between the parties.

Sole custody was awarded to the maternal grandparents, with a specified access schedule for the father, subject to a prohibition on alcohol consumption during access.

The father was also ordered to pay retroactive child support.

The appellant appealed a decision ordering the forfeiture of his shotgun and imposing a one-year firearms prohibition.

The police had seized the weapons after responding to a call about the appellant's suicidal Facebook posts, finding him intoxicated and combative.

The hearing judge found on a balance of probabilities that the appellant posed a risk to himself and the public.

On appeal, the court found that the hearing judge's decision was supported by the evidence of the appellant's ongoing depression, alcohol abuse, and chronic pain.

The appeal was dismissed on the merits, but because the one-year prohibition period had expired by the time of the appeal, the court ordered the firearm returned to the appellant or that he be given 60 days to sell it.

The parties engaged in a high-conflict 10-day trial over the custody and access of their nine-year-old daughter.

The mother sought sole custody, alleging the father had a history of domestic violence and alcohol abuse.

The father sought joint custody and equal time-sharing, alleging the mother was alienating him from the child and had mental health issues.

The court heavily criticized both parents for their relentless conflict and inappropriate behaviour during access exchanges.

The court rejected a flawed initial OCL report recommending joint custody and accepted a second OCL report recommending sole custody to the mother.

The mother was awarded sole custody, and the father's access was restricted to daytime visits until he completes court-ordered anger management and alcohol treatment programs.

In a status review application under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act, the Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order that a child be made a Crown ward.

The respondent mother opposed the motion.

The court determined that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and granted the society's motion.

The child, who had been in the society's care for approximately two and a half years and was only three years and eight months old, had minimal contact with the mother (only five visits over 22 months).

The mother had not meaningfully addressed the society's protection concerns regarding alcohol abuse, mental health issues, domestic violence, and parenting capacity.

The court found that Crown wardship was in the child's best interests and that no access order would be made.

The parties shared equal physical custody of their 12-year-old daughter until the respondent mother unilaterally terminated the arrangement following an incident where she alleged the applicant father was intoxicated.

The applicant admitted to a binge drinking problem, sought treatment, and provided proof of his efforts, but the respondent continued to withhold access, arguing the child wished to control when she saw the applicant.

The court found that placing the burden of deciding access on the child was not in her best interests and caused her significant stress.

The court ordered a gradual reintegration of access for the applicant, subject to conditions including no alcohol consumption and regular hair follicle testing, and appointed the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The applicant father and respondent mother brought competing motions regarding the mother's request to relocate their child to Sudbury.

The mother had moved to Sudbury for better economic opportunities and to live with her new partner.

The court considered the father's history of a severe drinking and driving incident, which raised concerns about his sobriety and the child's safety in his care.

Finding no such risks with the mother's plan, the court granted interim custody to the mother and permitted the child's relocation to Sudbury, with access to the father.

No costs were awarded as the court questioned the urgency of the mother's initial move.

The respondent mother brought a motion for summary judgment seeking sole custody of three children, no access or supervised access for the applicant father, child support, and a restraining order.

The applicant father sought joint custody and equal time-sharing.

The court granted summary judgment on most issues, finding no genuine issue requiring trial regarding custody, restraining order, and child support.

On the issue of access, the court applied expanded summary judgment powers to determine that supervised access should continue at the Toronto Supervised Access Centre rather than terminating access entirely, as the children benefit from their relationship with their father despite his history of alcohol abuse, failure to pay support, and concerning behaviour.

The accused pleaded guilty to aggravated assault after severely beating his 66-year-old roommate, causing a near-fatal traumatic brain injury.

The attack was unprovoked and occurred while the accused was intoxicated.

The court considered the accused's difficult background, mental health issues, and alcohol addiction as mitigating factors, balanced against the severe aggravating factors including the vulnerability of the victim and the accused's prior criminal record.

The court granted enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody and imposed a sentence of 54 months, less 30 months credit, resulting in 2 years less a day to be served, followed by 3 years of probation.

A motion by the Children's Aid Society of Algoma seeking a temporary care and custody order under section 51(2)(b) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The society sought to place three children in the care of their mother subject to society supervision and numerous terms and conditions.

The mother opposed the motion and sought an order under section 51(2)(a) with no supervision or conditions.

The father of the youngest child supported the society's position.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children were at risk of harm based on evidence of alcohol abuse, domestic discord, violence, questionable caregiver arrangements, and inadequate supervision.

The court granted the society's motion but modified several proposed conditions, finding some to be unreasonable or overly intrusive for a temporary order.

A child protection application brought by the Children's Aid Society of Brant seeking protection findings and wardship for a child whose mother had a longstanding history of alcohol and drug abuse, mental health issues, and domestic conflict.

The Society sought a six-month kin placement order.

The mother opposed and sought return of the child to her care.

The court found protection findings under certain subsections but determined there was a genuine issue for trial regarding disposition.

Upon consideration of the mother's motion to vary the temporary order, the court found a material change in circumstances and determined the child could be adequately protected under a supervision order if returned to the mother's care, subject to strict conditions and a transition period.

The father brought a motion for contempt alleging the mother failed to comply with a court order requiring their child to attend daycare daily.

The mother argued the daycare location was impractical and she was available to care for the child.

The court declined to alter the daycare requirement pending evidence addressing the mother's alleged alcohol issues, and adjourned the contempt motion.

The court also set the father's interim income for support purposes based on his 2010 Notice of Assessment, pending further documentation of his current consulting income.