Leonard G. Reich

This case concerned a dispute over the primary residence of an 8-year-old child, Paislee, following the parents' separation.

The applicant father sought to maintain Paislee's primary residence in Mitchell, Ontario, while the respondent mother sought to relocate Paislee to Sarnia, Ontario, where the mother resided with her new partner and their children.

The court applied the best interests of the child test under sections 39.4(3) and 24(3) of the Children's Law Reform Act, giving significant weight to Paislee's expressed views and preferences, her bond with her half and step-siblings, and concerns regarding her relationship with the father's new partner.

The court ultimately granted the mother's request for primary residence in Sarnia, effective September 1, 2024, with joint decision-making responsibility and a revised parenting schedule.

This endorsement addresses the sole remaining issue in a family law trial: whether to impose a publication ban and a sealing order on the court file, and whether to dispense with notice to the media.

The underlying proceeding was a motion to change brought by the father, involving allegations of sexual abuse against the children by a third party.

The court applied the three-prerequisite test from Sherman Estate v. Donovan to the open court principle, finding that court openness posed a serious risk to the children's privacy and dignity due to the sensitive nature of the sexual abuse details.

The court concluded that a sealing order and publication ban were necessary and proportionate, outweighing the negative effects on the open court principle.

The court also exercised its discretion to dispense with the requirement to provide notice to the media, emphasizing the children's best interests.

This endorsement addresses a costs motion following prior motions concerning parenting time, the sale of a jointly-owned residence, and interim spousal and child support.

The applicant sought partial indemnity costs, while the self-represented respondent opposed any costs award.

The court assessed the success of each party on the underlying issues, finding divided success on parenting, respondent success on the residence sale, and applicant success on support.

Applying principles of proportionality and reasonableness, the court awarded the applicant $5,000 in all-inclusive costs, enforceable as a support order.

The applicant father sought shared decision-making responsibility and equal parenting time for the parties' four children, two of whom have autism.

The respondent mother sought sole decision-making responsibility and defined parenting time, citing the father's history of alcohol abuse, criminal conduct, and family violence.

The court found the father's behaviour constituted family violence and that he lacked insight into his anger and its impact on the family.

The mother was granted sole decision-making responsibility.

The father was granted specified parenting time subject to strict conditions, including prohibitions on alcohol consumption and requirements to child-proof his residence.

The applicant mother brought a motion to terminate or supervise the respondent father's access to their child following allegations of sexual abuse.

The father brought a cross-motion seeking to enforce the existing final order, make-up access, and a finding of contempt against the mother.

The Children's Aid Society investigated and did not verify the allegations.

The court found the evidentiary record insufficient to make findings of sexual abuse and ordered that the father's unsupervised access continue, including limited overnight access.

The court also appointed the Office of the Children's Lawyer to represent the child and dismissed the balance of both motions.

A status review application concerning four children of Métis heritage who were apprehended due to neglect, domestic violence, parental cognitive limitations, and transiency.

The parents sought return of the two older children to the mother's care subject to a supervision order, with the father residing separately.

The court found the children in continuing need of protection and determined that extended society care was in their best interests.

The court ordered the two older children placed in extended care with the culturally matched Métis foster family, with minimum three face-to-face visits annually with the parents as access holders.

This case involved a child protection application by the Children's Aid Society.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the child in need of protection, despite the mother's cousin (SD2) not consenting.

The parents (SD1 and N.C.) consented to joint custody with the father having primary care.

The court then addressed SD2's separate motions for a s. 54 assessment and for access to the child.

Both of SD2's motions were dismissed.

The court found that an assessment was not necessary as there was abundant, consistent, and independent medical evidence, along with the Society's extensive history with SD2, indicating medical child abuse.

Furthermore, the court determined that it was not in the child's best interests for SD2 to have any access, citing the clear causal connection between SD2's care and the child's declining health, and the potential negative impact on the mother's development.

The applicant's motion for temporary relief was dismissed, and the respondent sought costs as the successful party.

The court acknowledged the respondent's complete success but emphasized the applicant's limited ability to pay and the financial hardship faced by both parties.

Finding no unreasonable conduct by the applicant, the court fixed costs at $1,250, inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable at a rate of $25 per month.

The applicant mother brought a motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, temporary child support, and temporary spousal support.

The parties had continued to reside together in the matrimonial home despite separating over five years prior, and both were burdened by significant consumer debt.

The court dismissed the motion for exclusive possession, finding no evidence of violence or that the children's best interests were compromised by the continued cohabitation.

The claims for temporary support were also dismissed as the respondent was already paying a large share of the family's expenses.

The Children's Aid Society sought a temporary care and custody order for a child with complex medical needs, following concerns of "medical child abuse" by the maternal grandmother.

Despite an initial ADR process, a final resolution was not reached.

The court considered a consent order, signed by all parties except the maternal grandmother, to place the child with the father and paternal grandmother under Society supervision.

The court reviewed extensive medical evidence detailing the child's significant improvement after being removed from the maternal grandmother's primary care.

The court granted the temporary supervision order, placing the child with the father and paternal grandmother, with conditions, and ordered supervised access for the maternal grandmother due to the credible medical concerns.

In a child protection status review involving eight children, the court considered whether the children should remain in the care of the Children’s Aid Society pending trial and whether certain children required independent legal representation.

Applying the Child and Family Services Act, the court determined that three of the older children should receive legal representation under s. 38, while younger children were too young to meaningfully instruct counsel.

The court found that the Society established ongoing protection concerns including inadequate supervision, poor school attendance, domestic violence exposure, and the caregiver’s inability to manage the children’s needs.

Proposed placements with family members and the return of several children to the mother’s care were rejected due to insufficient information and unresolved risk factors.

All children were ordered to remain in the Society’s care on an interim basis with access arrangements for family members.