Mary Jo McLaren

This motion concerned a father's urgent request to enforce a pre-existing time-sharing arrangement for his five-year-old son, Zachary, during the COVID-19 pandemic, which the mother had suspended due to concerns about the child's asthma and the father's essential worker status.

The mother brought a cross-motion to formally suspend the father's in-person access.

The court deemed the matter urgent due to the prolonged denial of access.

The court dismissed the mother's motion to suspend access, finding that the father's detailed adherence to COVID-19 safety protocols as an essential service plumber was sufficient to mitigate risks, and that maintaining physical contact was in the child's best interest.

The court also dismissed the father's motion for a finding of contempt against the mother and his request for timelines to initiate a motion to change custody.

The existing time-sharing order was reinstated, and the father was granted make-up access time, with both parents ordered to strictly follow public health guidelines.

The Respondent Father brought an urgent motion seeking an order to change the child's primary residence to his care, citing two instances where the child left the Applicant Mother's home.

The Applicant Mother brought a cross-motion for therapeutic reconciliation and other relief.

The court, operating under COVID-19 restrictions, first determined the urgency of the motions.

The court struck three exhibits from the Applicant's affidavit for being unhelpful, unreliable, or improper.

Ultimately, the court found that urgency had not been established for either motion, as the child was not at risk and the incidents had been resolved.

Both the Respondent's motion and the Applicant's cross-motion were dismissed, maintaining the status quo.

The court also provided directions for the parties to bring a future "Motion in Writing" to determine professional assistance for custody and access issues.

The Applicant, Sara Zehra Salim, sought costs following a lengthy family law trial where she was largely successful on issues of custody, access, spousal support, and Mehr payment.

The court found the Respondent, Syed Adeel Safdar, acted in bad faith regarding domestic violence allegations, which significantly prolonged the litigation and increased the Applicant's legal expenses.

The court awarded Sara $300,000 in costs, with $25,000 to be enforced by the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) as support-related expenses, considering the Respondent's financial difficulties and the need to preserve his ability to exercise supervised access.

This 6.5-day trial addressed spousal support and the determination of the applicant wife's income following an 11-year marriage between two physicians with three children.

The wife sought compensatory and non-compensatory spousal support, arguing her career choices and reduced work hours were made to accommodate child-rearing and the husband's more demanding career as an interventionist cardiologist.

The husband sought to impute a higher income to the wife based on an expert's report.

The court rejected the expert report due to methodological flaws, found the wife entitled to both compensatory and non-compensatory spousal support, and declined to impute income to her.

Child support was also determined based on a set-off formula due to equal time-sharing.

The court ordered indefinite spousal support commencing January 1, 2015, and specified child support amounts from January 1, 2013, with annual review mechanisms.

The Children's Aid Society of Hamilton brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a protection finding and Crown wardship without access for the child J.B. The Mother, P.B., opposed the motion, arguing she deserved a chance to parent.

The court reviewed the Mother's history, including four other children not in her care, concerns about substance abuse, domestic violence, lack of follow-through with counselling, and missed access visits.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, determined the child was in need of protection under sections 37(2)(b)(i) and (g) of the CFSA, and ordered Crown wardship without access, concluding that access would impair the child's future opportunities for adoption.

Following a concluded child protection trial in which the court ordered Crown wardship without access for the child, the court addressed a related proceeding under the Children's Law Reform Act involving claims for custody, access, and child support.

Because the child protection order had already determined the child’s status and eliminated parental access, the court found no basis to continue adjudicating the family law claims.

The court therefore dismissed all outstanding claims in the CLRA proceeding as moot in light of the Crown wardship order made in the child protection file.