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.

The applicants, the maternal grandmother and her partner, sought primary care of the child, Addison, and defined parenting time for the child's parents.

The mother sought the child's return to her care, and the father sought primary care for himself.

The court found it was in the child's best interests to remain in the primary care of the applicants, citing concerns about the mother's alcohol abuse and the instability of her living situation, and the potential disruption to the child's established community ties if placed with the father.

Joint decision-making responsibility was ordered, with final authority for the maternal grandmother.

Specific parenting time schedules were set for both parents, and the father was ordered to pay child support.

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 Father sought an urgent motion to resume court-ordered access to his daughter, which the Respondent Mother had unilaterally suspended due to COVID-19 concerns, the child's health, and the Father's alleged alcohol abuse and association with a "drug house." The court found the Mother's unilateral suspension wrongful.

While acknowledging the Mother's concerns, particularly regarding the Father's social distancing and attendance at a questionable residence, the court ordered the immediate recommencement of access with modifications.

These modifications included shortened access time, specific exchange protocols, continued breath sample reporting by the Father, strict adherence to COVID-19 protocols, and a prohibition on attending the "Cliftonvale Residence" without sworn evidence of legitimate work.

The Respondent Mother brought a motion to find the Applicant Father in contempt of previous access and parenting orders, alleging breaches related to the use of a SCRAM bracelet for alcohol monitoring and failure to consult on major decisions or provide medical updates for their children.

The court found ambiguity in the interpretation of the access order concerning the SCRAM bracelet and supervision requirements.

Given the high standard of proof for contempt (beyond a reasonable doubt) and the paramount consideration of the children's best interests, the court dismissed the contempt motion.

It emphasized that simply reverting to old orders was not in the children's best interests due to the time elapsed and the need for further investigation into the Respondent Mother's Motion to Change and the Applicant Father's request for reintegration therapy.

The parties were directed to a settlement conference to explore options for resuming access and safeguards.

The accused, J.D., was charged with three counts of sexual assault against his wife, D.D. The incidents allegedly occurred between January and April 2017.

The defense argued that D.D.'s testimony was not credible or reliable, suggesting a motive to fabricate due to ongoing family law proceedings, and highlighted inconsistencies in her statements.

The Crown argued D.D.'s testimony was credible, supported by an audio recording demonstrating the accused's animus and his admissions regarding alcohol use.

The court found J.D.'s testimony regarding his drinking problematic and inconsistent.

However, due to significant inconsistencies in D.D.'s testimony, particularly regarding the number and details of alleged assaults and "French Vanilla incidents," and a lack of thorough investigation into D.D.'s cell phone, the court was left with a reasonable doubt.

The court could not decide whom to believe and therefore found J.D. not guilty on all three counts.

This is a sentencing decision for a serious domestic assault.

The offender, Kostantinos Tountzios, pleaded guilty to assaulting his common-law spouse, causing significant injuries including a fractured arm and concussion.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the prolonged and vicious nature of the assault, the breach of trust, and the prevention of calling 911.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, genuine remorse, and lack of prior criminal record.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence as primary objectives, alongside specific deterrence and rehabilitation, noting the offender's alcohol abuse as an explanation for his behaviour, not a mitigating factor.

A joint submission was accepted.

A 24-year-old first-time offender was convicted of sexual assault against a 16-year-old victim.

The assault occurred when the offender, who was intoxicated, engaged in non-consensual sexual contact with the victim despite repeated verbal objections.

The Crown sought a 12-month custodial sentence, while defence counsel sought a suspended sentence with probation or a conditional sentence.

The court imposed a 12-month conditional sentence of imprisonment to be served in the community, finding that rehabilitation and specific deterrence were paramount considerations for a youthful first offender, and that a conditional sentence was consistent with sentencing principles despite the serious nature of the offence.

The Crown applied for an order under section 117.05(4) of the Criminal Code to forfeit the Firearms Possession Acquisition Licence of the respondent and to prohibit him from possessing weapons for five years.

The application arose from multiple incidents involving the respondent's alcohol abuse, mental health issues, violent threats against family members, and aggressive behaviour.

The respondent admitted to being an alcoholic and acknowledged his alcohol abuse contributed to violent outbursts.

The court found that it was not desirable in the interests of safety that the respondent possess weapons and ordered forfeiture of the licence and a three-year prohibition on weapon possession, reduced from the maximum five years to allow for treatment and rehabilitation.

The applicant mother, Andrea Bolla, brought an application for custody in Ontario after wrongfully removing her two children from Botswana, where they habitually resided with the respondent father, Alias Swart.

The central issue was whether the Ontario court should accept jurisdiction, which required the applicant to establish a risk of "serious harm" to the children if returned to Botswana under s. 23 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court found the applicant's claims of abuse, corruption in the Botswana legal system, and the children's anxiety to be unsubstantiated or insufficient to meet the high threshold of "serious harm." The court ordered the children's return to Botswana for custody proceedings to continue there, with undertakings from the father to mitigate short-term harm.

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 accused pleaded guilty to assault on a domestic partner, mischief under $5,000, and two counts of breach of probation.

The Crown sought 10 months incarceration plus pre-trial custody credit.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with three years' probation, finding that while domestic violence requires custodial sentences, the relatively minor nature of the physical injuries and the accused's demonstrated remorse warranted a non-custodial disposition.

The court credited 166 days of pre-trial custody on a 1.5:1 basis (249 days equivalent), which satisfied the custodial component.

Strict probation conditions were imposed, including abstinence from alcohol and drugs, no contact with the victim, and mandatory counselling for alcohol abuse and anger management.

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.

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.

In a status review application under the Child and Family Services Act, the court considered whether a child should be made a Crown ward for adoption or returned to parental care.

The Society sought Crown wardship without access based on concerns about the mother's alcohol consumption.

The court found that while the mother had consumed alcohol excessively during the relevant period, the risk could be adequately managed through an order placing the child in the legal custody of the non-biological father (who had acted as the child's father since birth) under Society supervision, with strict conditions regarding the mother's abstinence and monitoring.

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.

A 20-day trial in a high-conflict custody and access dispute involving a child who was 15 years old at the time of judgment.

The father sought to vary custody from the mother to himself and sought access enforcement orders.

The mother opposed the variation and sought to restrict paternal access to the child's wishes and subject to Children's Aid Society approval.

The court found that a material change in circumstances had occurred since the prior 2003 consent order, primarily due to a traumatic incident at the father's cottage in 2006 where the father was highly intoxicated and engaged in dangerous behavior, and allegations of sexual abuse by the child.

The court dismissed the father's claim for custody variation and access enforcement, finding that the child's estrangement from her father was a natural response to his conduct rather than parental alienation by the mother.

The court terminated the detailed access provisions of the 2003 order and replaced them with a provision that access would be subject to the child's wishes.

A child protection case involving an amended protection application by the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking a finding that a child born in 2010 is in need of protection due to parental alcohol and drug abuse.

The parents contested the application and sought placement of the child with them subject to society supervision.

The court found the child in need of protection under subsections 37(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and clause 37(2)(g) of the Child and Family Services Act based on evidence of chronic alcohol abuse by both parents, their lack of insight into the severity of their substance use, and the resulting risks of physical and emotional harm to the child.

The court made the child a crown ward without access for the purpose of adoption, finding that despite positive aspects of the parents' plan and their love for the child, the unaddressed alcohol abuse and inadequate safety plan posed unacceptable risks to the child's welfare and permanency needs.

The accused pleaded guilty to five offences: assault causing bodily harm (July 9, 2011), breach of undertaking (December 1, 2011), uttering threats (January 6, 2012), assault on a peace officer (January 7, 2012), and breach of recognizance (January 6, 2012).

The assault on the victim resulted in serious injuries including spinal cord syndrome, chronic pain, and permanent disability.

The accused has a significant criminal record including six prior assault convictions.

The court imposed a sentence of 10 months and 4 days imprisonment (after crediting 61 days presentence custody) with concurrent sentences on the remaining charges, followed by 24 months probation with strict conditions including abstinence from alcohol, participation in treatment programs, and no contact with victims.

The applicant mother sought sole custody, permission to relocate to Saskatchewan, child support, and a restraining order against the respondent father.

The parties separated following an incident of domestic violence that led to the father's arrest.

The mother subsequently moved with the children to Saskatchewan to live near her family.

The court found that the mother had been the primary caregiver and that the father struggled with alcohol abuse and had failed to pay child support.

The court granted the mother sole custody and permitted the relocation, finding it in the children's best interests.

The father was granted supervised access and ordered to pay child support based on imputed income.

A restraining order was also issued against the father.