Parental alienation

The applicant father sought a court order for family reconciliation therapy involving himself, the respondent mother, and their child, E. The mother opposed, arguing it was not in E.'s best interests, citing E.'s expressed views against it.

The court, relying on a Voice of the Child report, found E. to be a mature teenager whose wishes, while considered, were not determinative.

The court noted the mother's problematic behavior in hindering the father-child relationship and her failure to propose alternatives.

Concluding that reconciliation therapy was in E.'s best interests to restore contact and address family dynamics, the court granted the father's motion and ordered all parties to participate in therapy under specific terms.

This is an appeal from a trial decision concerning parenting time and decision-making responsibility.

The appellant father sought to change the shared parenting arrangement, alleging parental alienation, and requested a 90-day "protective separation" for the children to reside solely with him.

The trial judge dismissed this request, finding the existing arrangement to be in the children's best interests, and awarded costs to the mother.

The father appealed the trial decision and the costs award, also seeking to adduce fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upheld the trial judge's findings, declined to admit fresh evidence, and refused leave to appeal the costs award, emphasizing the narrow scope of appellate review in parenting disputes and the principle that post-trial events are typically addressed through variation procedures rather than appeal.

The father brought a motion to enforce a 2013 parenting order, alleging the mother's non-compliance.

The mother argued the children, aged 13 and 15, refused contact due to the father's emotionally abusive and combative conduct, which included involving police, interfering with their activities, and making false allegations.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding the mother's inability to force contact reasonable given the father's egregious behaviour.

The court also imposed restrictions on the father's future motions to prevent further harassment and misuse of the court system.

This decision addresses the costs of a decade-long family law proceeding.

The Respondent, M.M., sought full recovery of costs, alleging the Applicant, K.K., acted in bad faith.

The court found K.K. engaged in egregious bad faith conduct, including concealing financial information, presenting fabricated evidence, manipulating third parties, and repeatedly breaching court orders to inflict emotional, psychological, and financial harm on M.M. and alienate the children.

Consequently, the court awarded M.M. full recovery of trial-related costs and certain pre-trial costs, totaling $211,441, and stayed the enforcement of previous costs orders against M.M. due to K.K.'s oppressive conduct.

The father brought a motion seeking a temporary change in the primary residence of his two children (ages 8 and 10) from the mother to himself.

This was based on disclosures made by the children to their counsel regarding the mother's verbal abuse and excessive punishment.

The mother opposed the motion and sought the children's immediate return.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding that the disclosures, while concerning, did not amount to "compelling circumstances" to justify disturbing the six-year status quo.

The court ordered the children to resume primary residence with the mother, with protective terms regarding parental conduct and discipline.

The respondent father brought a motion to compel his 15-year-old child to attend reunification therapy and sought a determination on the quantum of life insurance to secure child support.

The applicant mother and the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) opposed the reunification therapy, citing the child's strong and consistent refusal and the potential for harm.

The court found both parents contributed to the family dysfunction, acknowledging the mother's inappropriate involvement of the child in parental conflict and the father's history of family violence.

The court dismissed the motion for reunification therapy, prioritizing the child's autonomy and well-being.

Regarding life insurance, the court ordered the father to maintain a policy of $165,950.00, securing child support and a portion of future post-secondary education costs, with annual reductions.

The applicant mother brought two motions: to suspend the father's parenting time pending a psychiatric assessment and to find him in contempt of court.

The motions arose from an incident where the mother intervened to prevent the father from exercising his court-ordered parenting time at the child's school graduation event, leading to a verbal altercation.

The court found that the mother had breached a prior court order by denying the father parenting time and that her allegations of the father's unfitness, based on his political views and the incident, were unsubstantiated.

The court dismissed both of the mother's motions, maintained the existing parenting schedule, clarified summer parenting time, and ordered the mother to pay costs to the self-represented father.

The decision emphasized the importance of parental cooperation and the child's best interests over parental conflict.

The applicant father sought an order under the Hague Convention for the return of the parties' seven-year-old son to Mexico.

The respondent mother opposed, relying on two exceptions: grave risk of harm due to alleged abuse and the child's resistance to return.

The court found that the mother failed to meet the high evidentiary threshold for grave risk of harm, noting a lack of objective evidence and the father's amenability to the justice system.

The court also determined that the child, at seven and a half years old, had not reached an appropriate age and degree of maturity for his views to be determinative, as his objections were inconsistent and influenced by his new environment rather than fear for his safety.

The father's application for the child's return was granted, with specific undertakings for the child's protection and transition in Mexico.

The applicant father initiated a parenting review seeking joint parental decision-making, week-about equal parenting time for their 13-year-old son J.K., J.K.'s enrollment in a Brampton high school, international travel permission, and modification of a restraining order.

The respondent mother opposed these requests, seeking to preserve her exclusive decision-making authority, maintain the current parenting schedule, and enroll J.K. in a Toronto school.

The court, conducting a fresh inquiry into J.K.'s best interests under the Divorce Act, found the father had made efforts to address past family violence and parental alienation but still exhibited problematic behaviors undermining the mother's parenting.

The court increased the father's parenting time incrementally but denied his request for joint decision-making and J.K.'s transfer to a Brampton school, citing the need for stability and the mother's demonstrated child-focused decision-making.

Travel restrictions were partially lifted for the father (within Ontario) and fully for 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 appeal concerned parental responsibility and decision-making for twin children, where one child was alienated from the mother and the other from the father.

The appellant mother sought to overturn a lower court order that maintained the de facto living arrangements (daughter with mother, son with father) and to reinstate previous shared parenting orders or gain sole parental responsibility for the son.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's decision that the existing arrangements were in the children's best interests, given the history of failed therapeutic interventions and the lack of a concrete plan for reunification therapy.

The court also confirmed that a material change in circumstances was not required for the motion judge's order, as per a prior consent order.

This decision addresses cross-motions concerning parenting time and decision-making for an 11-year-old child.

The father sought a temporary suspension of the mother's in-person contact due to her persistent non-compliance with court orders, repeated false allegations of abuse against the father, and demonstrated parental alienation tactics.

The mother, in turn, sought immediate full custody and suspension of the father's contact.

The court dismissed the mother's motion in its entirety, finding her allegations unfounded and her conduct harmful to the child.

The father's motion was largely granted, resulting in a temporary three-month suspension of the mother's in-person parenting time, with supervised phone calls, to protect the child's best interests and encourage the mother to seek necessary help.

The father (D.L.) brought a motion to change decision-making authority and sought an order for the children to participate in the Family Bridges program, alleging parental alienation by the mother (J.L.).

The mother opposed, seeking sole decision-making authority and arguing the children were estranged due to the father's conduct.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding no evidence of parental alienation and concluding that the children's reasons for rejecting the father were legitimate.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making authority.

The father brought a motion to temporarily change a parenting order and seek child support, while the mother brought a cross-motion for contempt.

The court found a material change in circumstances for the older child (A.-S., 15.5 years old), who had been living exclusively with the father and had a strained relationship with the mother.

The court ordered A.-S.'s primary residence to be with the father, with parenting time subject to A.-S.'s wishes.

The court dismissed the father's request to change the primary residence of the younger child (L.W., 9 years old), finding no compelling circumstances to alter the existing shared parenting arrangement.

The mother's contempt motion against the father was dismissed due to insufficient evidence and the court's preference for exploring alternatives to contempt.

The court ordered the mother to pay retroactive child support from August 1, 2020, and ongoing support based on the "economies of scale approach" for hybrid support cases, but denied the father's claim for special expenses for soccer due to lack of prior consent and insufficient evidence.

This trial concerned parenting issues, including decision-making and parenting time for a seven-year-old child.

The father sought 50-50 parenting time, joint decision-making, or sole decision-making, while the mother sought primary parenting and sole decision-making.

The court found the father's communication abusive and controlling, and his credibility low, concluding that joint decision-making or parallel parenting would be contrary to the child's best interests due to the high conflict initiated by the father, his lack of cooperation, poor judgment, refusal to pay child support, and disregard for court orders.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making authority and adjusted the father's parenting time to be less disruptive for the child, while ensuring maximum contact consistent with the child's best interests.

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 father brought a contempt motion against the mother for breaching prior court orders regarding parenting time and information sharing concerning their child.

The court found that the mother had intentionally failed to facilitate the child's relationship with the father, withheld medical and school information, and interfered with the child's communication with the father.

The judge determined that the mother's actions constituted willful disobedience and that she had not taken reasonable steps to comply with the orders.

As a remedy, the court ordered a change in the child's primary residence to the father, with the mother's contact suspended for 60 days, and granted the father temporary sole decision-making authority.

The decision emphasized the importance of upholding court orders and the negative impact of parental alienation on children.

The appellant father appealed a parenting order, seeking sole decision-making responsibility and exclusive residence for the children due to alleged parental alienation by the respondent mother.

The trial judge had previously found alienation but declined to reverse custody due to intervening circumstances (father's new child, pandemic, children's immediate mental health).

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence from a psychologist but dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the lower court's holistic assessment of the children's best interests, which prioritized their immediate mental health and stability over a disruptive custody reversal, especially given the new family dynamics and pandemic stressors.

The court ordered a brief review hearing in one year to ensure compliance with therapy orders.

This case involved a motion and cross-motion for interim custody of a child.

The applicant father sought sole or shared custody, while the respondent mother sought sole custody with supervised access for the father.

The court considered the father's extensive criminal record, history of drug involvement, and relapse, as well as his derogatory comments about the mother to the child.

Given the child had been in the mother's primary care for approximately five years, the court found it in the child's best interests to maintain the status quo.

The mother was awarded interim primary parenting time and sole decision-making responsibility.

The father was granted supervised parenting time on alternate weekends at his parents' residence, with his parents acting as supervisors to ensure the child's safety and prevent emotional harm.

Child support was also ordered based on the father's imputed income.

The case involved a high-conflict divorce trial concerning custody, access, child and spousal support, income determination, section 7 expenses, security for support, equalization of net family property, post-separation adjustments, and a restraining order.

The court addressed the parents' inability to co-parent effectively, their unilateral actions, and the impact on their children.

The judge granted sole custody decision-making to the father, ordered a week-about parenting schedule, determined retroactive and prospective child and spousal support, and calculated equalization payments.