Lynn Kirwin

The Halton Children's Aid Society brought a contested motion seeking to place the child, S.A.R., in the temporary care and custody of the father, M.D.R., subject to supervision, and to supervise the mother's, M.A.R.'s, parenting time.

The Society alleged emotional harm and risk of emotional harm to the child due to the mother's persistent, unfounded allegations of sexual abuse against the father and her coaching of the child.

The court found that the Society met its onus, concluding that the child would likely suffer harm if returned to the mother's unsupervised care, citing the mother's repeated unverified allegations, coaching, mental health issues, and the child's therapist's concerns.

The motion was granted, placing the child with the father and ordering supervised access for the mother.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, primary residence of the three children, final decision-making authority, and supervised parenting time for the respondent father.

The father brought a cross-motion for equal parenting time, joint decision-making, and an order permitting both parties to reside in the home until sold.

The court dismissed the mother's request for exclusive possession due to lack of urgency, allowing both parties to reside in the home temporarily.

The court granted the mother temporary primary residence and final decision-making authority as she was the primary caregiver.

The court denied the mother's request for supervised contact and the father's request for equal parenting time, ordering unsupervised contact for the father of at least six hours per week plus daily remote contact.

The applicant previously obtained an urgent, ex parte temporary parenting order against the respondent, with a return date set for an open motions list.

When the respondent attempted to file a counter-motion, the court registry refused to accept it on the basis that the open list motion was already scheduled for the maximum one hour.

The court intervened, holding that it would be contrary to natural justice and procedural fairness to prevent the respondent from filing a counter-motion after an ex parte order had been made against him.

The court directed that the counter-motion be accepted and set strict time limits for both parties to make their submissions within the allotted one hour.

Following a successful urgent motion under the Hague Convention for the return of a child to Missouri, the applicant father sought full recovery costs of $18,929.20.

The court found that the respondent mother acted in bad faith and unreasonably by making unsubstantiated allegations of abuse, failing to return the child, and absconding with the child after the initial order.

The court awarded costs approaching full recovery, fixed at $15,000, and ordered the costs to be enforceable as support by the Family Responsibility Office.

The applicant father brought a motion under the Hague Convention seeking the return of the parties' child to Missouri, USA.

The respondent mother had retained the child in Ontario following a visit and argued that returning the child would pose a grave risk of harm under Article 13(b) of the Convention, citing concerns about the father's parenting and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found that the child's habitual residence was Missouri and that the mother had wrongfully retained him.

The court rejected the mother's Article 13(b) arguments, finding her concerns did not amount to a grave risk of harm or an intolerable situation, and ordered the immediate return of the child to Missouri.

The mother unilaterally moved with the parties' two children from Toronto to Barrie without the father's consent or a court order.

The father brought a motion seeking the return of the children, joint custody, a 50/50 residential schedule, and unsupervised access.

The court declined to order the return of the children, finding that due to the passage of time, they had become well settled in Barrie and a return would be disruptive.

However, the court condemned the mother's self-help actions and ordered joint custody, with a 50/50 residential schedule to commence once the father relocates to Barrie.

The court also partially lifted the supervision requirement for the father's access and ordered the mother to pay $500 in costs due to her unreasonable conduct.

The applicant brought a motion seeking a finding of contempt against the respondent for breaching provisions of a prior family court order relating to the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL) referral, reconciliation counselling, and access logistics.

The court applied the three-part test for civil contempt and found that the respondent wilfully refused to comply with the clear requirement to complete and submit an OCL intake form within 14 days of the order.

Alleged breaches relating to reconciliation counselling and provision of access logistics were not proven to meet the contempt standard.

The court emphasized that contempt is a serious remedy requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt and should be used cautiously in family proceedings.

The respondent was found in contempt only with respect to the OCL intake form requirement, and the penalty phase was adjourned.

On a family law motion, the applicant sought a restraining order, temporary sole care and custody, and supervised access for the respondent pending investigation by child protection authorities.

The court held that the best interests of the children required a temporary supervised-access regime, relying particularly on the respondent's historic conviction for sexual assault of a young child, the children's very young ages, and the need to await the Children's Aid Society report.

Temporary sole care and custody was granted to the applicant, the restraining order was continued, and disclosure of CAS records was ordered.

Costs were reserved.