Parental alienation

The applicant, Sornia Archer, brought a motion to change a prior custody order, seeking sole decision-making and primary residency of her child, DAC.

The respondent, Michelle Williams, opposed this.

The court considered the child's best interests, including his strong and consistent views to have no contact with his biological mother, Ms. Archer, and to remain with Ms. Williams.

The court found Ms. Williams had intentionally sabotaged the relationship between the child and Ms. Archer.

Despite this, the court prioritized the child's expressed wishes and emotional well-being, denying Ms. Archer's request for contact.

The court also addressed child support, ordering Ms. Archer to pay support to Ms. Williams until the child turns 16, with a review at that time based on whether a meaningful relationship has been established.

Costs were awarded against Ms. Williams due to her unreasonable conduct and delay tactics.

The applicant brought a motion seeking an order for reunification therapy between herself and the parties' 15-year-old daughter, C, with the respondent covering expenses.

The court, applying the five-factor test from Leelaratna v. Leelaratna, dismissed the motion.

The judge found no compelling expert evidence to support the therapy, noted the interim stage of the proceedings, and emphasized C's views as a mature minor, who was not willing to voluntarily participate at this time.

The court concluded that forcing reunification therapy would not be in C's best interests and preferred an organic approach to mending the relationship.

This is Part 2 of a trial decision addressing financial issues in a family law matter, following a previous decision on parenting.

The court determined the equalization of net family property, occupation rent, child support, and spousal support.

The mother was awarded an equalization payment and occupation rent.

The court found the mother's mental health decline, caused by the father's parental alienation, was a significant basis for compensatory spousal support, though the quantum for 2023 onwards was deferred pending further submissions.

Child support obligations and s. 7 expenses were also determined, with adjustments made for reasonableness and necessity.

A divorce was granted.

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 case involves a high-conflict family law dispute over a 13-year-old child.

The respondent mother unilaterally withheld the child from the applicant father, violating a final parenting order for an alternating week-about schedule, and subsequently filed a motion to change seeking sole decision-making.

The father brought a motion for contempt and enforcement of the existing order.

The court found that the mother knowingly refused to comply with the order and attempted to create a new status quo.

While the elements of contempt were met, the court opted for other avenues to ensure compliance.

The mother failed to prove a material and compelling change in circumstances to justify a temporary variation of the final order.

The court ordered a gradual reintroduction of the alternating week-about schedule, emphasizing that the mother's unilateral actions had negatively impacted the child's mental health and relationship with the father.

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 Applicants (grandparents) brought a motion to enforce an interim contact order for their two grandchildren, alleging the Respondent mother had failed to comply with the previous order.

The court denied the Respondent's adjournment request, deeming it a delay tactic contrary to the children's best interests.

The court found the Respondent was actively preventing contact and influencing the children against their grandparents.

The motion for enforcement was granted, with the court ordering a new, detailed contact schedule, involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer, and a police enforcement clause as a last resort.

Costs were awarded to the Applicants.

The Respondent mother and the Children's Lawyer brought a summary judgment motion against the Applicant father seeking sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of the children, child support, contribution towards s.7 expenses, no equalization payment, and dismissal of the father's spousal support claim.

The father, who is self-represented and suffers from significant disabilities, opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding that a fair and just determination could not be made due to insufficient evidence, particularly regarding the father's medical condition and financial disclosure, and the rushed scheduling of the motion.

However, the court issued interim parenting orders granting the mother sole decision-making and primary residence, with the father's parenting time to be in accordance with the children's wishes, including supervised contact for the younger child.

The court also ordered further disclosure and a settlement conference, declining to award costs to any party due to mixed conduct.

The Applicant Mother sought primary residency of her son, Franky, and orders related to the Respondent Father's alleged breaches of prior orders and Franky's counselling.

The court dismissed the Mother's motion, maintaining Franky's primary residence with the Father.

The court found that Franky's stated views and preferences, his success in the Father's care, and the potential harm of forced counselling on an adolescent outweighed the Mother's claims of parental alienation and the findings of a non-court-appointed counselling centre.

The court declined to make findings of breach due to insufficient and untested evidence.

The Applicant Mother brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the Respondent Father's Motion to Change and an order for sole decision-making responsibility for their youngest child, C. The Father's Motion to Change sought sole custody and alleged parental alienation.

The court denied the Father's motion due to lack of leave.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding C's parenting, rejecting the Father's parental alienation claims as unsupported and attributing the strained parent-child relationships to the Father's own conduct.

Given a material change in circumstances and C's clear, independent views and preferences (at nearly 17 years old) to remain with the Mother, the court granted the Mother sole decision-making responsibility, maintaining the status quo in C's best interest.

The trial addressed highly contentious issues of decision-making responsibility, parenting time, child support, and the child's surname.

The court found the mother had engaged in alienating behaviour, including false allegations of abuse and flight risk.

The court ordered joint parallel decision-making, with specific areas of final authority for each parent, and an equal 2-2-3 rotating parenting time schedule.

Child support arrears were dismissed, and the child's surname was changed to a hyphenated form including the father's surname, and the father was added to the birth registration.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking to limit court file access, prohibit the respondent father from publishing online information about the proceeding or file documents, and compel the removal of existing online information.

The respondent father opposed, arguing constitutional rights and stating the Facebook page was for his daughter to know he didn't abandon her.

The court found the online information provided intimate and unnecessary details about the child and mother, which was not in the child's best interests.

The motion was granted in part, prohibiting the father from publishing or keeping public information identifying the child and/or mother, both prospectively and retrospectively, under section 70(1)(b) of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The rest of the motion was dismissed, and no costs were awarded due to the limited success and insufficient submissions from the moving party.

This ruling addresses a motion for temporary parenting arrangements for a two-year-old child in a high-conflict family law dispute.

The respondent father sought a triaged increase in parenting time leading to shared parenting, while the applicant mother, who had primary care, agreed to an increase in principle but disagreed on the timing and scope.

The court, noting the parties' extensive and detrimental conflict, ordered a staged increase in the father's parenting time, including overnights, while maintaining the mother's primary care, pending a s. 30 Children’s Law Reform Act assessment.

The decision also included orders for shared decision-making, communication protocols, shared costs for supervised access, and prohibitions against disparagement and social media posts.

The court declined to award costs, citing the parties' counterproductive litigation behaviour.

This trial addressed a motion to change a parenting order, retroactive child support, and unpaid s. 7 expenses.

The primary issue concerned the extent to which a 13-year-old child could decide her parenting time with her non-resident father, who was unwilling to adjust the existing order despite the child's increasing resistance.

The court found the father largely responsible for the estrangement due to his rigidity and failure to acknowledge the child's emotional needs and preferences.

The court ordered that the child's parenting time with the father would be at her discretion.

Additionally, the court found the father engaged in blameworthy conduct by failing to provide annual income disclosure, leading to underpayment of child support (excluding RRSP income as per a previous order).

Retroactive child support arrears and s. 7 expense arrears were ordered against the father.

The Father brought a motion seeking the return of one child (R.M.) to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and a declaration that the Ontario Superior Court lacked jurisdiction over parenting issues.

The court dismissed the Father's motion, finding that it had jurisdiction under both s. 22(1)(b) and s. 23 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court found that all six criteria under s. 22(1)(b) were met, including that there were no pending extra-provincial proceedings due to the Father's bad faith in concealing UAE custody proceedings from the Mother.

Furthermore, the court found that R.M. would suffer serious physical and psychological harm if returned to the UAE, given the Mother and children's Convention refugee status, the Father's history of abuse and lack of credibility, and R.M.'s strong, consistent views against returning.

The father sought an order for his two children (ages 10 and 12) to receive COVID-19 vaccinations.

The mother opposed, citing well-founded safety concerns and the children's own expressed wishes not to be vaccinated.

The court emphasized the importance of evidence, the best interests of the child, and giving due weight to children's views, especially when supported by credible, albeit contrary, medical information.

The judge criticized the father's attempts to discredit the mother's views based on her political affiliations.

The motion was dismissed, and the mother retained sole decision-making authority regarding the children's COVID vaccinations.

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.

The appellant mother appealed a trial judge's order transferring primary care of the parties' two children to the respondent father, which included an initial period of no contact for the mother and a staged increase in parenting time.

The trial judge's decision, made after a 39-day trial, found the mother had intentionally undermined parenting schedules and made false allegations of sexual abuse to terminate the children's relationship with the father.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's exercise of discretion and factual findings, emphasizing the deference owed to trial judges in parenting orders, especially when the decision has already been implemented.

The court found no error in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings or her consideration of the Divorce Act regarding family violence, as the mother's allegations were not established.

The appellant mother appealed a trial judge's order granting the respondent father sole custody/decision-making responsibility for their child and temporarily suspending the mother's contact, following a finding of parental alienation.

The appellant argued the trial judge misapplied the best interests test, failed to consider less drastic options, did not adequately weigh the child's views, and misapprehended evidence.

The Court of Appeal found no merit in these submissions, affirming the trial judge's findings of parental alienation and the drastic change in custody as being in the child's best interests, supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay appeal costs.

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.