Lauren C. Blanchet

The decision addresses two contested issues in a family law motion: (1) whether income should be imputed to the Respondent, Shannon Turner Zaharia, for the purpose of determining temporary child support, and (2) whether the proceeds from the sale of the jointly owned property at 86 Woodland Crescent, Petawawa, Ontario, should be paid out to the parties or held in trust pending further order.

The court declined to impute income to the Respondent at this interim stage, finding insufficient evidence of intentional underemployment.

The court also ordered that the net proceeds from the sale of the property be held in trust pending further order or agreement, given the outstanding determination of equalization entitlement.

The applicant mother sought a final order permitting her to permanently relocate with the parties' three young children from Renfrew to Powassan, Ontario.

The respondent father opposed the relocation, arguing that the children should remain in Renfrew where they could continue a shared parenting arrangement.

The court analyzed the best interests of the children under the Divorce Act, emphasizing the mother's need for emotional and financial support from her family in Powassan.

Ultimately, the court granted the relocation, finding it to be in the children's best interests, while establishing a parenting schedule that preserves the father's meaningful relationship with the children.

The Family and Children’s Services of Renfrew County brought a motion for a temporary care and custody order for three First Nation children.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children were at risk of harm if returned to the mother without supervision, due to her history of substance abuse, mental health issues, and domestic violence.

Applying the "least disruptive placement" principle under the CYFSA and considering the children's First Nations heritage under the federal Act, the court ordered the children to be placed in the temporary care and custody of their parents, subject to the Society's supervision and specific conditions.

The order also granted unsupervised access to the father of the youngest child.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking an order for the child's residence to be returned to Petawawa, Ontario, and for disclosure of Family and Children’s Services records.

The respondent mother opposed, having unilaterally relocated the child to Grafton, Ontario, citing safety concerns and alleged abuse by the father.

The court found the respondent failed to provide proper notice of relocation as required by the Divorce Act and that her allegations of abuse were not sufficiently corroborated to excuse this requirement.

Applying the best interests of the child framework under the Divorce Act and principles from Plumley v. Plumley, the court ordered the child's residence to be returned to Petawawa, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the child's accustomed routine and relationship with both parents.

Disclosure of FCSRC records was also ordered.

The defendants moved for summary judgment against the plaintiff, seeking the return of a service dog, Briggs, arguing there was no genuine issue for trial as the plaintiff was not the dog's owner.

The plaintiff opposed, citing incomplete discovery and insufficient evidence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a fair and just adjudication required a trial due to credibility issues and a deficient record, especially given the constraints of simplified procedure rules which limit pre-trial proceedings like cross-examinations.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking to return the child's residence to the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) and for orders regarding equal parenting time and joint decision-making.

The applicant mother opposed, seeking to maintain the child's residence in Westmeath and for sole decision-making.

The court declined to order the child's return to the GTA, finding the mother's initial relocation was not intended to be permanent and the father had acquiesced by delaying his motion.

The court expanded the father's parenting time to preserve his relationship with the child but did not grant the mother sole decision-making, instead ordering joint decision-making on major issues.

The decision emphasized the child's best interests and the established status quo in Westmeath.

The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's apprehension of her children and related access issues.

The respondent argued the issues were already before the court or had been previously decided.

The Board found that most of the issues raised were excluded from its jurisdiction under section 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, as they were the subject of ongoing or concluded court proceedings.

The Board also found that re-litigating these issues constituted an abuse of process.

The sole remaining issue regarding a lack of updates on the children was dismissed on the merits, as the respondent provided evidence of adequate written communication.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to hear her concerns regarding access to her children and their health and safety while in the care of their fathers.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues had already been addressed in family court and ongoing child protection proceedings.

The Board agreed, finding that the issues raised in the complaint were squarely before the court during temporary care and custody motions.

The complaint was dismissed in its entirety pursuant to section 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

A child protection agency brought a motion for temporary care and custody of a six-year-old child.

The child's parents had been involved in protracted custody litigation in both Canada and the United States, including Hague Convention proceedings after the mother surreptitiously removed the child to the United States.

Following a U.S. court order returning the child to Canada, the child was placed in the father's care.

The court found that returning the child to the mother's care would effectively mean returning the child to the United States, posing a high risk of harm and loss of contact with the father.

The court ordered that the child be placed in the temporary care and custody of the father under the agency's supervision, finding it to be the least intrusive alternative consistent with the child's best interests.

The Society brought a motion for temporary care and custody of the child.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking the child's return under a supervision order.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the child was at risk of harm due to the mother residing in a tent near used needles and with a partner facing outstanding criminal charges for child abuse.

The court concluded a supervision order would not adequately protect the child and granted the Society's motion for temporary care.