coercive control

The decision addresses an interim parenting motion involving allegations of family violence, including by the applicant’s parents against the respondent.

The court considers the impact of family violence by non-litigants and the best interests of the child, ultimately granting the applicant father parenting time every weekend and Wednesday evening.

The court condemns coercive control and family violence by extended family members and emphasizes the need for a child-focused, fact-specific approach to parenting orders.

This sentencing decision addresses multiple offences including breach of a release order, assault, and assault causing bodily harm within the context of intimate partner violence.

The offender, C.P., pleaded guilty after trial commenced, and the court considered both the evidence presented and facts read in by the Crown.

The decision emphasizes the seriousness of intimate partner violence, including physical, emotional, and psychological abuse, as well as breach of court orders.

The court balanced aggravating factors such as repeated breaches and ongoing abuse with mitigating factors including the offender’s guilty plea and efforts to address addiction.

The offender was sentenced to 12 months custody on each count concurrently, with enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, followed by three years probation with strict no-contact conditions and ancillary orders including DNA sampling and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

This decision concerns a high-conflict family law re-trial regarding the relocation of a five-year-old child from Toronto to Ireland, decision-making responsibility, and parenting time.

The court found a long-standing pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour by the Respondent, Aamir Saleem Shipton, toward the Applicant, Kathleen Marie Shipton, including family violence, financial control, and isolation.

The court permitted the relocation to Ireland, granted the Applicant sole decision-making authority, and set out a detailed parenting schedule to ensure the child maintains a relationship with both parents and her multicultural heritage.

The decision applies a blended best interests analysis, referencing recent appellate and Supreme Court guidance on relocation, family violence, and the importance of stability and parental well-being.

The decision addresses an urgent, without notice motion by the Applicant mother for orders prohibiting the Respondent from removing the children from Ontario, requiring the surrender of the children’s passports, permitting substituted service, and facilitating video parenting time.

The court finds a real and substantial risk of removal and family violence, and grants the requested relief, emphasizing the best interests of the children and the need for stability, safety, and ongoing contact with both parents.

This decision involves the conviction of Joseph Herrington for assaulting his intimate partner, Janice Wu, contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code.

The court carefully analyzed the credibility and reliability of the witnesses, including the complainant, a neighbour, and the accused himself.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the judge found the complainant’s evidence credible and reliable despite minor inconsistencies, supported by the neighbour’s independent testimony.

The accused’s evidence was found implausible and inconsistent.

The court rejected the defence’s de minimis argument, emphasizing the seriousness of intimate partner violence.

The accused was found guilty based on the totality of the evidence proving the assault beyond a reasonable doubt.

This decision addresses a motion brought by the mother seeking to maintain their child's current private school placement at Kingsway College School for the 2025-2026 academic year.

The father opposed the placement, proposing a public school alternative or a reduction in his financial contribution to private school expenses.

The court emphasized the importance of maintaining the status quo in temporary parenting orders absent compelling reasons, and found the father failed to provide sufficient financial disclosure or evidence to justify a change.

The court also expressed concern about the father's coercive behavior and unilateral actions.

Ultimately, the court ordered the child to remain at Kingsway with the father contributing 95% of the educational expenses and the mother 5%, consistent with their prior agreement.

This sentencing judgment addresses multiple counts of assault by Alexandru Ciobanu against his wife and 13-year-old son, highlighting the serious nature of intimate partner violence and child abuse.

The court emphasizes aggravating factors including coercive control, threats to life, and the impact on vulnerable victims, including children exposed to violence.

Despite the offender's difficult background and refugee status, the court imposes a custodial sentence reflecting the gravity of the offences, the need for denunciation and deterrence, and the protection of victims.

The decision also discusses the limited applicability of conditional sentences in cases of personal violence and the importance of proportionality in sentencing.

This decision concerns an application by Dr. Kelly Diane Riedel regarding the validity and administration of the Dmyant Sangha Family Trust and the Sangha Property Trust.

Dr. Riedel alleges that the trusts are shams, created to defeat her family law entitlements, and seeks various forms of relief including the production of legal records and the conversion of the application to an action.

The court addresses the legal standards for sham trusts, the relevance of disputed facts, and the entitlement to privileged documents.

The application to convert to an action is dismissed, and the court sets out a process for determining threshold questions regarding the validity of the trusts.

The respondent sought a final restraining order against the applicant and an order dispensing with the applicant's consent for the child's identification documents, citing a pattern of family violence.

The applicant denied the allegations and sought dismissal of the restraining order, proposing alternative contact restrictions or a delayed re-application.

The court found the applicant had perpetrated family violence, characterized by a cycle of abuse, and that the respondent had reasonable grounds to fear for her safety.

The court granted the final restraining order against the applicant, including restrictions on contact and proximity, and dispensed with the applicant's consent for the child's identification documents, effective immediately and subject to review after 36 months without incident.

This family law trial decision addresses parenting and property claims following a 21-year marriage.

The court determined the best interests of the two youngest children (L.A., 17, and F.A., 15), both on the autistic spectrum.

The mother sought primary residence and sole decision-making for education and autism-related therapies, while the father sought shared parenting.

The court found a history of intimate partner violence by the father and his continued lack of insight into the emotional impact of his actions.

The mother was deemed the primary caregiver, highly attuned to the children's special needs, and the children expressed a clear preference for more time with her.

The court granted the mother primary residence, sole decision-making for education and autism-related programming/therapies, and joint decision-making with final authority to the mother on other issues.

The father was granted alternative weekend and one alternate weeknight parenting time.

On property claims, the mother was attributed $7,000 in pre-marital savings, and the father's extensive request for reconciliation of household goods was largely dismissed as unreasonable.

The mother appealed an order denying her permission to relocate her three-year-old daughter from Toronto to Ennis, Ireland.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge made material errors, seriously misapprehended evidence, and committed legal errors in his "best interests of the child" analysis under the Divorce Act.

Specifically, the trial judge erred in assessing family violence allegations, making unfounded assumptions about the mother's family's attitude towards the child's biracial heritage, and concluding that the mother manipulated the court system.

The trial judge also erred by re-characterizing the relocation case as a "support case" and misapplying the burden of proof.

The appeal was allowed, the trial decision set aside, and a new trial ordered on an expedited basis, with costs awarded to the mother.

M.L. was sentenced for multiple intimate partner violence offences, including five counts of assault, one sexual assault, two mischief under $5000, and one uttering threats.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the prolonged nature of the abuse, the presence of a child during some assaults, and the breach of trust.

Mitigating factors included M.L.'s lack of prior criminal record, community support, and rehabilitative potential.

The court imposed a global sentence of 15 months custody (11 months additional jail after pre-sentence credit) and 24 months probation.

An exemption from the Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order was granted, finding it grossly disproportionate given M.L.'s rehabilitative prospects and low risk of re-offending.

The applicant father sought the return of the parties' child to Portugal under the Hague Convention, alleging wrongful removal by the respondent mother.

The child was born in Portugal in 2020 and removed to Canada by the mother in June 2022.

The court found that while the child's habitual residence was Portugal, the father did not have custody rights under Portuguese law that would render the removal wrongful.

Even if the removal were wrongful, the court found two exceptions to mandatory return applied: the father acquiesced to the child remaining in Canada, and there was a grave risk of harm to the child if returned to Portugal due to the father's pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour against the mother.

The father's application was dismissed.

This trial concerned parenting and child support arrangements for four children.

The father sought primary residence and decision-making, and child support, while the mother sought the same, along with specific parenting orders and communication restrictions, alleging family violence.

The court found the mother to be the primary caregiver and a capable parent, while the father was deemed manipulative, selfish, and to have perpetuated family violence.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, and ordered a graduated parenting time schedule for the father with strict conditions.

Child support was ordered based on the father's current income, starting January 1, 2023.

The Respondent Mother brought a motion seeking police enforcement of a final order and supervised parenting time for the Applicant Father.

She alleged the Applicant Father overheld the child in Montreal, contrary to a previous order, and has a history of disobeying court orders, including a restraining order and prior parenting time orders that required police intervention.

The Applicant Father argued his actions were justified by concerns about the child being taken to Cambodia and that his past breaches were irrelevant or excusable.

The court found the Applicant Father's history of non-compliance and threatening behaviour constituted family violence, demonstrating a pattern of coercive and controlling conduct.

The motion was granted, ordering supervised in-person parenting time for the Applicant Father due to concerns about his trustworthiness, the child's emotional safety, and threats made.

This 3-day trial addressed decision-making, parenting schedule, and child support for the parties' 12-year-old son.

The court found the father (Respondent) engaged in manipulative, coercive, and emotionally harmful behavior, including making racist and misogynistic comments and involving the child in the litigation.

The mother (Applicant) was granted sole decision-making authority and primary residence.

The father's parenting time was restricted and ordered to be staged, conditional on his attendance at counselling programs addressing the emotional harm to children from domestic conflict and anti-black racist comments.

The court also calculated child support arrears owed by the mother to the father, and ordered ongoing child support from the father to the mother.

The Applicant Mother brought an urgent interim motion seeking permission to remain in South Carolina with the children, having left Canada due to alleged family violence and coercive controlling behaviour by the Respondent Father.

Despite procedural irregularities regarding the formal notice of motion, the court deemed the motion properly before it.

The court considered the serious allegations of abuse, the Applicant's role as primary caregiver, and the children's best interests, particularly in light of the Divorce Act's provisions on family violence and relocation.

The Respondent's denials were found to be minimizations and deflections.

The court extended the temporary order allowing the Applicant and children to remain in South Carolina, finding it unsafe for them to return to Ontario at this time.

This decision addresses a motion brought by the wife (S.R.) to enforce a consent order regarding the release of $77,000 from the sale proceeds of the matrimonial home, representing retroactive child support, and past and future spousal support.

The husband (S.C.H.) argued that the funds should be held in trust until the final resolution of all issues, including costs, based on the interpretation of the consent order's holdback provisions.

The court applied principles of contractual interpretation, reading the order as a whole and considering surrounding circumstances, and found that the holdback language in paragraph 2 applied to all financial allocations, not just the property equalization payment.

The wife's motion was dismissed, and the funds are to remain in trust pending further order or agreement.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice heard an 11-day trial concerning property equalization, child support, spousal support, and a claim for damages related to family violence.

The court recognized a common law tort of family violence, finding the Father liable for a 16-year pattern of physical, psychological, and financial abuse.

The Mother was awarded $150,000 in compensatory, aggravated, and punitive damages for the tort.

The court also made findings on the parties' incomes, ordered retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, and determined the final equalization payment, largely in the Mother's favour.

The Applicant Mother and the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) brought motions for restraining orders against the Respondent Father under s. 46 of the Family Law Act.

The motions sought to restrain the father from coming within 500 metres of the mother's home and the children's locations, and from communicating with them.

The court reviewed the history of family violence, including the father's criminal charges and breaches of recognizance, and a period of attempted reconciliation.

The court accepted the children's expressed views and preferences, which indicated fear and distress regarding the father.

The court found that the father's repeated breaches constituted a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour, amounting to family violence, and that there were reasonable grounds to fear for the safety of the mother and children.

The motions were granted.