Parental alienation

In a judge-alone trial on charges of sexual assault and sexual interference involving a child complainant, the court acquitted.

Applying the W.(D.) framework and the reasonable doubt principles in Villaroman, the court accepted the accused's denial and, in any event, found the Crown had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court identified concerns about reliability, including added trial particulars, possible coaching, motive connected to parallel family litigation, and the complainant's use of language the court found likely externally supplied.

The court also relied on the surrounding family conflict and the broader evidentiary context in concluding that reasonable doubt remained on all counts.

In a high-conflict parenting trial, the court found a prolonged and severe pattern of coercive and controlling family violence by the applicant father against the respondent mother, with ongoing harmful impact on the child.

Applying the best-interests analysis under the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court held that the father’s conduct, including interference with parenting time, inappropriate communications, and pressure placed on the child, rendered him incapable of supporting the child’s relationship with the mother or making decisions in the child’s best interests.

The court ordered that the child reside primarily with the mother, granted the mother sole decision-making authority, imposed a staged and conditional parenting regime for the father, dismissed the father’s relocation request, and continued a restraining order.

The court also imputed the father’s income at $50,000 for child support purposes and directed ongoing support.

In a high-conflict parenting dispute, the responding parent moved for a contempt finding arising from repeated non-compliance with interim week-about parenting orders concerning two of the children.

Applying the contempt framework, the court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the moving party had notice of clear orders and failed to take the concrete parental steps necessary to require the children’s compliance, instead leaving them with the impression that parenting time was optional.

The court accepted that caution is required in family contempt matters and, prioritizing the children’s best interests, declined to proceed immediately to a formal contempt order.

A staged reintegration order was imposed for June through August 2022, with the original week-about regime to resume on September 1, 2022, and a further status hearing scheduled.

The respondent father brought a motion to continue an order suspending the applicant mother's access to the children and restraining her from communicating with them.

The court found that the mother had engaged in a prolonged campaign of emotional abuse, manipulation, and denigration of the father, which had destabilized the children.

Since the suspension of access, the children had thrived in the father's care.

The court held that it was in the children's best interests to continue the access suspension and restraining orders, with a provision for limited, supervised communication in the future.

The respondent father brought a motion for reunification counselling with his daughter, interim spousal support, interim disbursements, and an equalization payment advance.

The applicant mother opposed the relief.

The court found it had jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act to order reunification therapy and directed the parties to engage a specified therapist.

The court awarded the father interim spousal support of $500 per month but dismissed his claims for interim disbursements and an equalization advance, finding the mother lacked the means and the test for an advance was not met.

Following a high-conflict custody trial where the respondent mother was found to have alienated the children, the applicant father sought costs of over $785,000.

The court awarded the applicant costs on a substantial indemnity basis for the main action and full recovery for specific motions, finding the respondent engaged in unreasonable and bad faith conduct.

The court also apportioned the costs of the section 30 assessment and reintegration therapy, ordering the respondent to pay the majority of these expenses due to her alienating behaviour.

Total costs of $625,337.40 were awarded to the applicant.

The appellant father appealed a Family Court order granting the mother sole custody of their two children with supervised access to him, and allowing the Children's Aid Society to withdraw its protection application.

The father argued the motions judge erred in finding a material change in circumstances, hearing the matters simultaneously, allowing the withdrawal without a full hearing, and improperly relying on a section 54 assessment report.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motions judge properly applied the test for varying custody due to parental alienation, correctly exercised discretion to hear the matters together, held an appropriate hearing for the withdrawal, and did not improperly rely on the assessment report.

The mother and the Chief of Police brought motions to change a final custody order that granted the father sole custody of two teenage sons and required police enforcement to compel the sons to attend a reunification program.

The sons, aged 16 and 18, had consistently refused contact with the father and actively evaded police enforcement.

The court found a material change in circumstances, removed the police enforcement clause, and rescinded the custody order entirely, concluding that it was impossible to enforce and no longer in the children's best interests.

No new custody order was made, leaving the sons to determine their own residential and contact arrangements.

The children and the Chief of Police were represented by separate counsel on the motions.

The applicant father sought to vary a final consent order that provided for shared custody of the parties' three children, seeking sole custody, child support, and s. 7 expenses.

The court found a material change in circumstances as the shared parenting arrangement had become unworkable and the children consistently expressed a desire to live with the father.

The court awarded sole custody to the father with a specified access schedule for the mother.

The father was granted leave to amend his pleadings at trial.

The court ordered the mother to pay ongoing child support and partial retroactive child support, but denied the father's claim for retroactive s. 7 expenses due to lack of notice and his tactical use of an expert report.

During a family law trial, the respondent sought to qualify a social worker as an expert in family therapy and parental alienation.

The court refused to qualify the proposed expert, finding she failed to meet the threshold requirements of admissibility under the Mohan framework and lacked the requisite independence and impartiality required by the White Burgess test.

The court noted the proposed expert viewed herself as an advocate for the children, failed to comply with the Family Law Rules regarding expert duties, and demonstrated bias in her report.

However, the court admitted video interviews of the children conducted by the proposed expert, subject to later submissions on their weight.