Margaret Ozel Teixeira

A temporary care and custody motion under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 involving four children (ages 9, 8, 4, and 1) with a history of exposure to intimate partner violence, non-accidental injury, adult conflict, and caregiver instability.

The court determined that both parents posed risks requiring removal from their sole care.

The older children were placed with the mother under supervision with strict conditions, while the younger children were placed with the paternal grandmother under supervision.

All parties received supervised access with the children, with the mother's partner prohibited from any contact.

The decision emphasizes the need for meaningful behavioral change and compliance with supervision orders before unsupervised access or return of children can be considered.

The court addressed motions concerning parenting arrangements for a young child, following the mother's unsubstantiated allegations of sexual abuse by the father's older children and concerns about the mother's repeated, intrusive physical examinations of the child.

Finding no evidence of abuse and concluding the mother's actions were harmful, the court transferred primary care to the father.

The mother's parenting time was ordered to be supervised, with prohibitions on her direct involvement in the child's personal care and from denigrating the father or his children.

The applicant father brought a motion for expanded parenting time on a step-up basis for the parties' 4-year-old son.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, alleging past abuse and arguing the father was unengaged in the child's upbringing.

The court found the mother's position inflexible and not focused on the child's best interests, noting that the current arrangement of brief visits at a mall was insufficient for bonding.

The court granted the father's proposed step-up parenting plan and awarded him $12,000 in costs.

In an uncontested family property trial, the court considered whether equalization under the Family Law Act should be displaced by an unequal division and whether the applicant was entitled to post-separation adjustments.

The evidence showed that after separation the respondent procured a substantial second mortgage on the matrimonial home, converted the proceeds to personal use, failed to account for the funds, and left the applicant bearing family and household obligations while defending creditor litigation arising from his business affairs.

Applying the high unconscionability threshold under s. 5(6), the court held that requiring the applicant to pay the ordinary equalization amount would shock the conscience of the court.

The court therefore relieved the applicant of the equalization payment and awarded net post-separation adjustments of $285,251.23, with prejudgment interest from the date of the application.

The applicant was previously successful on an urgent motion for the return of her children, who were unlawfully withheld by the respondent.

The court determined the quantum and scale of costs for that motion.

Finding that the respondent acted in bad faith by withholding the children without justification, keeping them out of school, and intending to inflict financial and emotional harm, the court awarded the applicant full indemnity costs of $5,545.46 pursuant to Family Law Rule 24(8).

The applicant father initiated an urgent motion for access to his son after the respondent mother unilaterally relocated with the child without disclosing her whereabouts.

The court granted the father temporary supervised access, rejecting the mother's assertion of no access.

Given concerns regarding both parents' capacity, the Office of the Children’s Lawyer was ordered to intervene.

The court awarded the father fixed costs for an earlier appearance, finding the mother's conduct unjustified.