Mary A. Fraser

The children's aid society brought a status review application seeking to place a four-year-old child in Extended Society Care.

The child had been in care for over two years due to the mother's severe substance abuse and unstable lifestyle.

Although the mother had made significant progress in addressing her addiction and mental health issues over the past year, the court found she was not yet capable of parenting the child unsupervised on a full-time basis.

Given the child's need for permanency, the court ordered Extended Society Care but granted ongoing access, designating both the mother and the child as access holders.

The respondent mother, a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, brought a motion for a temporary order permitting her to relocate the parties' two children from Chalk River to Kingston due to a military posting.

The applicant father brought a cross-motion seeking an order that the children remain in Chalk River and that the existing shared parenting arrangement continue.

Applying the Plumley principles for interim relocation, the court found a genuine issue for trial and no compelling circumstances to justify an interim move that would disrupt the children's stable environment and close contact with the father.

The mother's motion was dismissed, and the father's cross-motion was granted in part, maintaining the status quo pending trial.

The Applicant sought a temporary order for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and farm property.

The Respondent brought a cross-motion for exclusive possession, a restraining order, and a non-depletion order.

The court determined that the farm property, being primarily used for business, did not form part of the matrimonial home for the purpose of exclusive possession under the Family Law Act, restricting the matrimonial home to the residence and immediate yard.

Considering the best interests of the children, financial positions, and the short duration of the marriage, the court granted the Applicant exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, finding the Respondent's reasons for remaining insufficient and her business not tied to the property.

The Respondent's requests for a restraining order and a non-depletion order were dismissed due to insufficient evidence of fear for safety or depletion of assets.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change the child's school from Steve MacLean Public School to Mutchmor Public School, citing the father's frequent moves and the child's long commute.

The respondent father opposed, arguing for the child to remain at the current school or alternatively attend a school in Kanata.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the father's change of residence and, applying the best interests of the child test, granted the mother's request.

The decision emphasized the importance of the child attending school in their residential neighbourhood to foster friendships and stability, especially given the mother's long-term residential stability.

The applicant children's aid society brought a motion for an order placing the child in its temporary care and custody.

The respondent father and stepmother sought the child's return to their care, while the respondent mother sought unsupervised access.

The court found credible and trustworthy evidence that the child was exposed to a high conflict environment and inappropriate discipline in the father and stepmother's care, creating a risk of emotional and physical harm.

The court concluded that a supervision order would not adequately protect the child and ordered that the child remain in the temporary care and custody of the society with specified access for the respondents.

The applicant father brought a motion to expand his parenting time with his two children and to have it unsupervised.

The respondent mother opposed, citing the father's recent criminal charges, substance abuse issues, and mental health concerns, and requested sole decision-making authority and child support.

The court found that while the father has a loving relationship with the children, the mother raised reasonable concerns necessitating temporary supervised parenting time until further evidence regarding his alcohol issues and criminal charges could be assessed.

The court ordered expanded supervised parenting time by an agreed-upon third party and ordered the father to pay $1,000 per month in child support.

The applicant father sought an order for the return of their 10-year-old son to Renfrew County, primary residence with him, and enrollment in a local school, along with temporary child support.

The respondent mother had unilaterally relocated the child to Welland and sought to maintain this relocation.

The court, applying the Divorce Act, found a material change in circumstances due to the relocation.

Despite the burden of proof being on the father to show the relocation was not in the child's best interests (due to the prior primary residence arrangement), the court found that the relocation caused significant disruption to the child's life, including reduced contact with the father and extended family, loss of school and friends, and the child's expressed wish to be closer to his father.

The mother failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the move or demonstrate that an equivalent educational program was unavailable locally.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion to prohibit the respondent mother from relocating the child's residence from Ottawa to Arnprior, or alternatively for primary residence.

The mother brought a cross-motion to prohibit the father from bringing further urgent motions.

The court applied the Gordon v. Goertz and Plumley v. Plumley factors for interim mobility.

The court found the mother was the primary caregiver, the move was for affordable housing, and the father's parenting time would continue uninterrupted.

The court permitted the move on an interim basis and dismissed both the father's and mother's motions.

The respondent mother brought a motion to vary a temporary consent order to require the applicant father's parenting time to be supervised and to impute income for child support.

The mother alleged the father breached the existing order by exercising unsupervised parenting time and raised concerns about his substance abuse and behavior.

The court found the father's failure to abide by the agreed supervision terms constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court ordered supervised parenting time and imputed a full-time minimum wage income to the father due to his failure to produce ordered income tax returns, resulting in a temporary child support order.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for the return of the parties' child after the respondent father refused to return the child following his parenting time.

The court found that the respondent improperly engaged in self-help by altering the established status quo.

The court ordered the immediate return of the child to the applicant's primary care and established a temporary parenting schedule for the respondent.

The applicant's request for a restraining order was dismissed due to insufficient evidence, but a no-contact order was issued restricting communication to a parenting app.

The applicant grandmother brought a motion for temporary contact with her 7-year-old grandchild after the respondent parents suspended contact in February 2020.

The parents, who share joint residency, opposed the motion, citing concerns about inappropriate behaviour and parental autonomy.

The court dismissed the temporary motion, finding insufficient evidence to conclude the parents acted arbitrarily under the Chapman test.

However, the court ordered the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer for a s. 112 assessment to assist in determining the child's best interests.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion for the return of the parties' seven-year-old child to her primary care after the applicant father unilaterally withheld the child following a medical incident.

The father alleged the mother had substance abuse issues, but a Children's Aid Society investigation did not verify these concerns.

The court found that the father engaged in inappropriate self-help by altering the established status quo without a compelling reason.

The court ordered the child returned to the mother's primary care, restored the previous parenting schedule, and permitted the mother to return the child to his original school.

The applicant children's aid society and the respondent mother each brought motions regarding the temporary care and custody of two children.

The children had been removed from the mother's care due to her erratic and aggressive behavior and placed with their respective fathers.

The court applied the test under section 94 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, finding reasonable grounds to believe the children would be at risk of harm if returned to the mother.

The court ordered that the children remain in the temporary care of their fathers.

The respondent mother brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support, while the applicant father brought a cross-motion for shared parenting, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and a set-off of child support.

The court expanded the father's parenting time but declined to order an equal shared arrangement on a temporary basis.

The father was ordered to pay temporary child support of $769 per month based on his income, and granted exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The request for temporary spousal support was deferred to trial.

The applicant society brought a motion for summary judgment regarding the disposition of a child protection matter involving a First Nations child.

While the parties agreed the child should remain in the custody of maternal kin, the respondent mother opposed the father having joint decision-making and unsupervised parenting time, and opposed a formal contact order for the paternal extended family.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial.

The court ordered that the child remain with the maternal kin, granted supervised parenting time to the father, and made a specific contact order for the paternal extended family to ensure the child remains connected to his Algonquin heritage, given the father's inconsistent involvement.

The respondent father brought a motion to vary a temporary order to increase his parenting time with three of his children.

He alleged that the applicant mother was alienating the children from him and that increased time would provide greater predictability.

The applicant opposed the motion, citing differing parenting styles, safety concerns regarding COVID-19, and the children's expressed preferences.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer submitted that the current arrangement was consistent with the children's views.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no compelling reasons or demonstrated change in circumstances to justify altering the interim parenting schedule, noting that the children's comfort with the status quo was not persuasively linked to alienation.

The Society brought a motion for temporary care and custody of the child.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking the child's return under a supervision order.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the child was at risk of harm due to the mother residing in a tent near used needles and with a partner facing outstanding criminal charges for child abuse.

The court concluded a supervision order would not adequately protect the child and granted the Society's motion for temporary care.

The mother brought a motion seeking a finding of contempt and a $5,000 fine against the father, a six-week summer access period, sharing of travel costs as Section 7 expenses, and punitive costs.

The court dismissed the contempt and perjury claims, finding no breach of the prior order.

The court maintained the previously ordered four-week summer access schedule and ordered each party to bear their own transportation costs for the child's travel between Ontario and Nova Scotia.

The parties were ordered on consent to exchange their Office of the Children's Lawyer intake forms.

The parties sought costs following a motion and cross-motion regarding interim custody, parenting time, and the release of funds from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court found that success on the motions was divided, as neither party achieved a result as favourable as their position on the main issue of parenting arrangements.

Although the applicant made an offer to settle, he did not obtain a result as favourable as the terms of the offer.

Consequently, the court ordered that there be no order as to costs.

The applicants brought a motion to find the respondent in contempt for failing to comply with a 2017 access order regarding the children.

The respondent admitted to withholding access because the applicants would not agree to her additional conditions, which were not part of the original order.

The court declined to make a finding of contempt, exercising its discretion as the respondent mistakenly believed an agreement was in place.

However, the court ordered a specific schedule for the resumption of access and included a police enforcement clause to ensure future compliance.