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 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 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.