Lise S. Parent

The Children's Aid Society of the Region of Peel brought a motion for summary judgment seeking statutory findings, a finding that the child L.W. was in need of protection, and an order making the child a Crown ward for purposes of adoption.

The child was born prematurely with significant health concerns and was apprehended shortly after birth.

The mother had five older children, all of whom had been found to be children in need of protection and permanently placed outside her care.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding statutory findings or protection findings based on the mother's chronic inability to provide adequate care, poor home conditions, and lack of insight into her parenting deficits.

The court granted the Society's motion, made the child a Crown ward without access, and denied the mother's requests to amend her plan of care and for a section 54 assessment.

The applicant mother sought a declaration that the child was wrongfully removed from France by the respondent father and sought an order for the child's immediate return.

The father opposed the application, claiming a grave risk of physical or psychological harm to the child if returned to France.

The court found that the child was habitually resident in France, the mother had custody rights, the mother was exercising those rights at the time of removal, and the child was being wrongfully detained in Canada.

The court rejected the father's defences under Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention, finding insufficient evidence of grave risk.

The court also found the child had not attained sufficient age and maturity to have her objections considered.

The court ordered the child's return to France, subject to transitional arrangements to be determined at a follow-up conference.

Motion to change custody and support arrangements for a six-year-old child.

The applicant sought to reduce the respondent's weeknight access from weekly overnight to alternate Wednesdays until 8:00 p.m., while the respondent sought to reinstate weekly overnight Wednesday access.

The court granted weekly overnight Wednesday access to the respondent, finding it in the child's best interests.

The court also addressed transportation responsibilities, exchange locations, child support base amount, and section 7 expense contributions.

The respondent's income was imputed at $109,000 annually for child support purposes, resulting in increased monthly support.

Section 7 expenses for after-school care were ordered to be shared equally between the parties.

Motion to change a spousal support order.

The respondent sought to terminate or reduce his spousal support obligation of $1,200 per month (indexed), claiming material change in circumstances including decreased self-employment income due to age and physical ailments, possible end of common-law relationship, and applicant's refusal to utilize her LIRA or accept contributions from their adult daughter.

The applicant opposed the motion and sought a lump sum payment of accumulated arrears.

The court found a material change in circumstances limited to the respondent's ability to earn self-employment income.

The court reduced spousal support to $506 per month based on imputed incomes of $28,479 (respondent) and $14,591.52 (applicant), and increased arrears repayment from $50 to $913 per month.

The court rejected claims to impute income to the applicant and dismissed the applicant's request to prohibit further variation motions.

The respondent brought a motion to change seeking retroactive adjustment of child support based on deductibility of motor vehicle expenses.

The applicant opposed and brought a cross-motion seeking increased child support based on undeclared rental income, fixed contributions to section 7 expenses, spousal support, and enforcement of health insurance provisions.

The court found the respondent entitled to deduct motor vehicle expenses from income effective January 1, 2013 (not retroactively to 2009), and ordered inclusion of net rental income in the respondent's income for child support purposes effective January 1, 2013.

The court dismissed claims for retroactive rental income inclusion, section 7 expense contributions lacking proper consent, spousal support due to insufficient evidence of material change in circumstances, and the health insurance enforcement claim.

Motion to change child support brought by the custodial parent seeking retroactive increase in support from January 1, 2009.

The payor parent lost employment in October 2012 and sought reduction in support.

The court declined to order retroactive support for 2009-2011 based on the four-factor test from D.B.S. v. S.R.G., finding no blameworthy conduct and risk of hardship.

However, the court granted retroactive increase effective July 1, 2012 based on the payor's income at that time.

Following job loss, the court imputed income of $32,000 to the payor rather than accepting either party's position, finding the payor was intentionally underemployed and well-educated with good employment prospects.

The respondent brought a motion to change seeking termination of child support obligations for her adult daughter who had reached the age of majority.

The applicant opposed the motion.

The court found that the child remained entitled to support as she was enrolled in full-time post-secondary education.

The court varied the original support order, maintaining the monthly support amount of $172.00 until the child's anticipated graduation, and established a payment schedule for accumulated arrears.

This is a child protection trial concerning access to a Crown ward.

The child, A.B., was made a Crown ward without access in 2011.

The mother appealed the no-access provision, and the Superior Court ordered a trial on the access issue alone.

The trial examined whether the mother-child relationship was meaningful and beneficial to the child as required under section 59(2.1) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The court found that while a meaningful bond existed, the relationship was not beneficial to the child due to the mother's persistent disregard of court-ordered access conditions, her pattern of encouraging the child to break rules, and her lack of insight into the harm caused to the child.

The court dismissed the mother's claim for access and upheld the no-access order.

The respondent brought a motion to change seeking to reduce his child support obligation and fix arrears at a nominal amount, claiming he had made direct cash payments to the applicant and that two letters signed by the applicant forgave accumulated arrears.

The applicant opposed the motion, claiming she never received direct payments and that the letters were signed under pressure without intent to forgive arrears.

The court found that the two letters dated May 28, 2006 and November 13, 2009 did forgive arrears for the period from March 1, 2005 to November 30, 2009.

However, the court rejected the respondent's claim of direct cash payments for the subsequent period, finding insufficient corroboration.

The court fixed arrears at $7,036.29 and varied ongoing child support from $605.00 to $496.00 per month based on a demonstrated change in the respondent's income.

The applicant sought retroactive child support for 2009-2011 and contribution to private school tuition for the 2012-2013 academic year.

The respondent, the stepfather of the applicant's daughter, acknowledged his child support obligation but disputed the amount of income to be attributed to him and whether private school tuition constituted a reasonable section 7 expense.

The court imputed income of $50,000 annually to the respondent, ordered retroactive support arrears from June 1, 2010 to December 31, 2011, and determined that private school tuition was a reasonable section 7 expense to be shared proportionally based on the parties' incomes.