Maria N. Sirivar

A family law trial concerning access, safety protocols, and section 7 expenses for a child born to unmarried parents who separated in 2013.

The applicant sought orders regarding timely access exchanges, safety protocols for farm access, reunification therapy, and contribution to section 7 expenses.

The respondent, a veterinarian living on a farm, sought removal of penalty clauses and an order for the applicant to attend counselling for alleged interference with access.

The court imposed limited terms for access resumption, rejected the proposed safety protocols, declined to order counselling for the applicant, and awarded partial contribution to counselling expenses.

The applicant father sought to resume parental access to his child following the respondent mother's suspension of access in January 2020.

The mother sought to maintain the suspension citing COVID-19 pandemic concerns.

The court found that the mother had not established legitimate medical reasons for the suspension and that she was using the pandemic as a pretext to withhold access.

The court ordered the resumption of access with modifications to comply with public health directives, including restrictions on third-party contact during exchanges and no additional household members during access visits.

The court also expressed concern about the escalating parental conflict and the mother's weaponization of the pandemic.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order to place two children in extended society care.

The children had been in care for five years after being abandoned by the mother.

The father, who had a positive relationship with the children, was unable to secure suitable housing despite significant support and extensions of time.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, noting that poverty was not the determining factor, but rather the father's lack of problem-solving, judgment, and motivation.

The motion was granted, placing the children in extended care with flexible access for the father.

A mother sought to vary an order placing her son in extended society care by obtaining increased and unsupervised access.

The child, who sustained an acquired brain injury resulting in physical and cognitive impairment, severe attention deficit, and behavioral challenges, had been made a Crown Ward in 2015.

The mother proposed expanded access for rehabilitation purposes, claiming the foster parents were not adequately addressing the child's physical rehabilitation needs.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the mother had not demonstrated a change in circumstances sufficient to warrant variation.

The mother continued to lack insight into the child's behavioral needs, focused exclusively on physical impairments while dismissing the child's own preferences, and had not demonstrated the ability to work cooperatively with the child's caregivers or recognize the risks posed by unsupervised access.

The respondent brought a motion to change a final custody and access order made in 2014 that provided for joint custody and a shared parenting schedule.

The applicant had unilaterally moved from Scarborough to Markham, enrolled the child in a new school, and removed the child from daycare without the respondent's consent.

The applicant sought to vary the parenting schedule to accommodate the move.

The court found that the applicant's self-help tactics breached the joint custody order and failed to respect its spirit and letter.

The court restored the status quo, ordering that the child reside primarily with the respondent and attend school in Scarborough, with the applicant having access three out of four weekends per month.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking resumption of court-ordered access to his child, make-up access, permission to amend his response to seek sole custody, transfer of residence if access continued to be denied, police enforcement of access, disclosure of Children's Aid records, and costs.

The respondent mother had denied all access since September 16, 2018, claiming the child had made allegations of mistreatment.

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

The court found the mother in breach of the April 25, 2017 order and applied Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules to impose sanctions.

The court granted make-up access on specified dates, permission to amend the response, and allowed the applicant to serve the Children's Aid Societies for disclosure.