Mario Jorge De Sousa Paiva

The Applicant sought urgent access to his 20-month-old child, Mikael, after being arrested and released with conditions prohibiting contact with the Respondent and requiring third-party arrangements for child contact.

The Respondent brought a cross-motion seeking supervised access and temporary custody.

The court granted leave for the urgent motion, finding that the child's well-being was impacted by the lack of contact.

The court denied the Respondent's request for supervised access, finding insufficient evidence of risk, and established a temporary access schedule for the Applicant to have unsupervised access three times a week at the paternal grandmother's home, with specific arrangements for transportation and exchanges.

The Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion seeking an order of Crown wardship for a child who had been in temporary Society care for over 30 months, exceeding the statutory 12-month limit.

The respondent parents sought return of the child under supervision or, alternatively, a 6-month extension of Society wardship.

The court found that despite the Society's arguments regarding serious protection concerns—including the mother's seizure disorder, the father's substance abuse and criminal history, domestic violence, and both parents' mental health issues—there remained genuine issues of material fact requiring trial.

The court noted significant developments, particularly the mother's successful brain surgery resulting in seizure freedom and improved mental health.

The motion was dismissed and the matter was directed to trial.

The accused was charged with threatening to kill the complainant on December 14, 2012.

The trial took place in Toronto's Integrated Domestic Violence Court.

The complainant and accused had a former romantic relationship and were engaged in a contentious family court proceeding regarding custody and access to their child.

The complainant alleged that the accused threatened to kill her, that she would explode like a balloon, that he would break her, and that he sent a threatening email.

The court found the complainant's credibility was substantially damaged by her prior false affidavit recanting allegations of assault, the suspicious timing of her allegations coinciding with an unfavorable custody recommendation, and her demonstrated determination to obtain sole custody.

The court found the accused not guilty, holding that the Crown failed to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.