coercive control

This motion concerns parenting time for three young children (3-year-old twins and a 2-year-old) following the arrest and subsequent withdrawal of criminal charges against the mother.

The mother sought to vary a temporary parenting order that had limited her to seven hours of supervised parenting time per week.

The father opposed the variation, arguing the mother engaged in a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour, including orchestrating an elaborate scheme involving impersonation and threats.

The court found insufficient evidence to conclude the mother was responsible for the scheme, but remained concerned about her pattern of fabricating stories about deceased or non-existent children told to multiple individuals.

The court increased the mother's parenting time to include overnight visits supervised by maternal grandparents, while maintaining supervision pending trial.

The respondent father brought a motion for compliance with a consent temporary parenting time order dated April 12, 2024, and sought make-up parenting time for time that was withheld.

The applicant mother countered with a motion to vary the parenting time order and impose supervised parenting time.

The central issue involved allegations of family violence and coercive control by the father.

Following a high-risk committee meeting on March 12, 2025, the mother withheld the child and supervised parenting time was implemented.

The Children's Aid Society initially required supervision but subsequently changed its position and stated it was not taking a position on parenting time.

The court found that while the father had engaged in reprehensible conduct in the past, his recent behavior demonstrated a shift, he had cooperated with authorities, undertaken counselling and programming, and there was no evidence of continued violations of court orders.

The court dismissed the mother's motion for supervised parenting time, ordered the mother to comply with the April 12, 2024 order, and denied the father's request for make-up time.

The defendant was convicted of assaulting his intimate partner following a domestic dispute.

The assault occurred in the family home after the defendant took the victim's vehicle keys and purse, leaving their children in the van.

The defendant chased the victim around the kitchen island, swung at her with a closed fist, attempted to kick her, and then lunged and grabbed her.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with three years probation, finding that while the defendant had no criminal record and demonstrated remorse through counselling, the serious nature of intimate partner violence, the context of coercive control, and the presence of children required a conviction to reflect denunciation and deterrence principles.

In a high-conflict family law trial, the applicant father sought primary residence and sole decision-making for the parties' seven-year-old child, while the respondent mother sought a 'therapeutic goodbye' to sever the father's relationship with the child.

The mother had made numerous allegations of family violence and child sexual abuse against the father, resulting in criminal charges that were later withdrawn.

The court found that the mother engaged in severe parental alienation, coached the child to make false abuse allegations, and deliberately sabotaged 51 court-ordered supervised parenting visits.

Concluding that the mother's restrictive gatekeeping and alienating behaviour caused psychological harm to the child, the court awarded sole decision-making and primary residence to the father, along with a five-month no-contact order for the mother.

The court also ordered the partition and sale of the matrimonial home, imputed an income of $60,000 to the mother for child support, and ordered her to pay an equalization payment of $100,327.47.

This trial decision addresses parenting time, decision-making responsibility, and child support between common-law parents.

The court found the respondent engaged in coercive and controlling behavior by unilaterally withholding the child and making unsubstantiated Children's Aid Society (CAS) reports.

While declining to order equal shared parenting due to logistical distance, the court expanded the applicant's parenting time and granted him final decision-making authority for health and medical matters, with the respondent retaining decision-making for education.

The court also determined the applicant's income for child support, set post-application arrears, and ordered ongoing child support, declining to order retroactive support for a period where the respondent's unilateral actions pre-empted a shared parenting plan.

The parties separated in 2019 and entered into a final settlement regarding property and spousal support in 2020, but child support remained unresolved.

The mother sought retroactive and ongoing child support, while the father brought a motion to change the parenting order to shared parenting and sought to set aside the property settlement.

The court found that the father had engaged in significant family violence, coercive control, and physical discipline, which constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and curtailed the father's parenting time, making its expansion conditional on his completion of the Brayden Nurturing Parent Program and individual therapy.

The father was also ordered to pay $99,432.23 in retroactive child support and section 7 expenses, and his request to set aside the property settlement was dismissed.

The parties separated after a short, traditional marriage.

The father assumed primary care of their young child and engaged in a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour, including restricting the mother's parenting time, making unfounded allegations about her mental health, and psychologically abusing the child by involving him in the litigation.

The mother sought sole decision-making responsibility, primary parenting time, spousal support, and equalization.

The court found the father to be an 'unfriendly parent' who engaged in family violence and could not be trusted with decision-making.

The court awarded the mother residual decision-making responsibility and ordered a transition to a shared parenting schedule, ultimately culminating in a 2-2-5 schedule.

The court also imputed income to the father, ordering him to pay retroactive and prospective child and spousal support, as well as an equalization payment of $124,542.43.

The parties separated after a 19-year marriage characterized by the father's coercive control and family violence.

Following separation, the father engaged in severe alienating behaviours, resulting in the four children completely rejecting their mother.

The mother sought a custody reversal for the two youngest children.

The court found the father entirely responsible for the severe alienation but concluded that a custody reversal would not be in the children's best interests due to the mother's emotional fragility and the high risk of further trauma.

The children remained in the father's primary care with strict conditions, including independent communication rights for the mother with schools and health professionals.

The parties separated after a six-year marriage characterized by the applicant father's coercive control and family violence.

The father sought equal parenting time and sole decision-making for education and healthcare, while the respondent mother sought primary parenting time, joint decision-making, and spousal support.

The court found that the father's history of violence significantly impacted the mother and child, causing severe anxiety.

The court awarded the mother sole decision-making authority and primary parenting time, with the father receiving alternating weekends and conditional summer time.

The father was also ordered to pay full Table child support and spousal support at the high end of the range due to the economic consequences of his abusive conduct.

In a high-conflict family law trial, the court determined the appropriate parenting schedule and decision-making responsibility for three children.

The mother made numerous allegations of family violence, sexual assault, and child abuse against the father, all of which were investigated by police and child protection services and found to be unsubstantiated.

The court found the mother's evidence lacked credibility and that she had engaged in a pattern of alienating behaviour, supported by the maternal grandparents, to unjustifiably restrict the father's parenting time.

The court ordered equal parenting time for the two younger children and a stepped-up reunification schedule for the eldest child, granting the father sole decision-making responsibility over the reunification therapy process.

The parties separated in 2019 after a 19-year marriage.

The mother sought sole decision-making responsibility, child support, and an equalization payment, while the father sought joint decision-making, equal parenting time, and spousal support.

The court found that the father had engaged in coercive control and family violence, making joint decision-making impossible, and awarded sole decision-making to the mother.

The court maintained the existing parenting schedule, ordered the father to pay retroactive and ongoing child support, and dismissed his claim for spousal support.

The father was also ordered to pay an equalization payment of $178,615.79, along with reimbursements for joint expenses and a penalty for failing to disclose his pension valuation.

The parties, a high-income banker and a part-time physician, engaged in a high-conflict family law trial primarily concerning parenting time with their two teenage daughters, spousal support, and the partition and sale of the matrimonial home.

The mother alleged family violence and coercive control, while the father alleged parental alienation.

The court found neither extreme applied but noted the mother's diffidence in supporting the father's relationship with the children.

Respecting the children's ages and wishes, the court ordered daytime parenting time for the younger child but did not force the older child to participate.

The court imputed a full-time income of $550,000 to the mother but ordered the father to pay $20,000 per month in spousal support for 12.5 years, alongside $24,661 in monthly child support.

The mother's request for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home was dismissed, and partition and sale were ordered.

The applicant mother sought to relocate with the parties' three-year-old daughter to Ireland, arguing she needed to return to her home country to practice optometry and escape the respondent father's alleged coercive control.

The father opposed the relocation.

The court dismissed the relocation application, finding the mother's allegations of abuse lacked credibility and her economic rationale was flawed, as she could upgrade her degree in Canada.

Instead of permitting relocation, the court ordered the father to pay compensatory spousal support to fund the mother's professional requalification in Ontario, and ordered joint decision-making for the child.

The applicant sought partial summary judgment to dismiss the respondent's claim to set aside a cohabitation agreement.

The respondent argued the agreement should be set aside due to unconscionability, undue influence, duress, and inadequate financial disclosure, stemming from alleged coercive control during their 18-year common law relationship.

The court found that there was a genuine issue requiring a trial, particularly concerning the credibility of the parties and the nature of their relationship, which could not be resolved on a paper record.

The applicant's motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The respondent father brought a motion for additional interim parenting time on a graduated schedule leading to equal time.

The applicant mother opposed, proposing a slower schedule.

The court considered the child's best interests under s. 16(3) of the Divorce Act, noting concerns about both parents' mental health, the father's history of absences due to military deployments, and allegations of family violence and coercive control against the father.

The court ordered a graduated schedule of unsupervised in-person parenting time for the father, but declined to order overnight parenting time at this stage.

The applicant brought a motion seeking an interim restraining order, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and primary residency of the children.

The respondent brought a countermotion seeking a nesting order or exclusive possession, and parenting time.

The court lifted the existing interim restraining order, finding the applicant's fears were not objectively legitimate to warrant the order.

The court granted the applicant exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, finding a nesting order inappropriate due to ongoing conflict.

The court ordered a parenting schedule providing the respondent with regular overnight parenting time and dismissed the applicant's request for interim sole decision-making as premature.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal and child support, section 7 expenses, and a preservation order.

The parties cohabited for a short period and had one child.

The applicant argued the respondent's declared income of $140,400 did not match his lavish lifestyle, which included luxury cars, designer clothing, and expensive watches.

The court imputed an income of $400,000 to the respondent based on a lifestyle analysis and unexplained cash expenditures.

The court also imputed $50,000 to the applicant.

The court ordered interim spousal support of $8,553 per month, table child support of $3,099 per month, and granted a preservation order over the respondent's condominium and investment accounts due to a real risk of dissipation.

The applicant mother sought permission to relocate with her seven-year-old child to Lebanon.

The mother had sole custody and was the primary caregiver, but struggled financially in Canada and wished to return to her family support system in Lebanon.

The respondent father opposed the move, fearing he would lose contact with the child.

The court applied the newly amended relocation provisions of the Divorce Act.

While acknowledging the mother's financial vulnerability and the father's history of coercive control, the court ultimately dismissed the application.

The court found that the mother's proposed parenting plan was too vague, failed to adequately facilitate the father's parenting time, and that relocating to Lebanon posed safety and security risks that were not in the child's best interests.

Father sought the return of a child to Germany under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, claiming wrongful retention by the mother in Canada.

The mother raised the Article 13(b) defence, alleging grave risk of harm to the child based on a pattern of domestic violence, coercive control, and isolation by the father.

The court found the mother credible and established a constellation of factors including physical and emotional abuse of the mother, emotional abuse of the child, control and isolation, and the insulated nature of the Syrian community in Germany.

The court concluded there was grave risk of ongoing physiological and psychological harm if the child were returned and dismissed the father's application.

The accused was charged with 19 offences including sexual assault with a weapon, assault, uttering death threats, criminal harassment, unlawful confinement, and causing the complainant to take a noxious thing.

The Crown sought to admit expert evidence from Dr. Deborah Sinclair regarding the dynamics of domestic violence, traumatic bonding, coercive control, and victim behaviour.

The defence opposed admission on grounds of relevance, necessity, expert qualification, and impartiality.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine admissibility of the expert evidence.