Meaghan O’Connor

This decision concerns a child protection trial under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 involving the child S.W.W., born in 2017.

The Children’s Aid Society of Peel sought a protection finding and a custody order placing the child with his father, S.W., supported by the father and the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.

The mother, A.W., self-represented, sought the return of the child to her care but did not file answers to the protection applications.

The trial was intensively case managed, with the mother’s participation challenged by her failure to comply with court orders and her disruptive behaviour.

The evidence revealed significant concerns about the mother’s mental health, her refusal to send the child to school, and her hyper-vigilance and fixed delusions regarding the child’s welfare.

The child had made inconsistent statements, some likely coached by the mother.

The child was thriving in the father’s care with improved school attendance and emotional well-being.

The court found the child to be in need of protection due to risk of emotional harm if returned to the mother and ordered custody to the father with supervised parenting time for the mother, subject to conditions including mental health treatment and a flexible parenting time regime.

The applicant father brought a motion to vary an interim parenting schedule to increase his overnight parenting time with the parties' 20-month-old twins and to permit him to enroll them in daycare.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, citing severe health concerns for one of the twins who was immunocompromised following a lengthy hospitalization for meningoencephalitis.

The court dismissed the father's primary requests, finding no compelling reason to change the status quo and noting that daycare posed an unacceptable health risk at this time.

The court ordered an alternative schedule proposed by the mother and requested the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The parties were divorced in Connecticut, where a final order dealt with custody and child support.

The father subsequently obtained an order from the Connecticut court permitting him to relocate with the children to Ontario.

After moving, the father commenced an application in Ontario seeking to supersede the Connecticut orders regarding custody, access, and child support.

The mother brought a motion to stay the Ontario proceeding, arguing that Ontario lacked jurisdiction or, alternatively, that Connecticut was the more convenient forum.

The court dismissed the mother's motion, finding that Ontario had jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act and the Family Law Act, and that Ontario was the forum conveniens given the children's habitual residence and the location of current evidence.

The respondent brought a motion for interim child support.

The key disputes involved the applicant's income for child support purposes, specifically whether a $730,000 one-time earning from business sales should be included, and whether a $650,000 transfer from the applicant to the respondent for a property down payment constituted an inter vivos gift.

The applicant argued his ongoing payment of over $6,000 in monthly expenses for the matrimonial home should stand in lieu of child support.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion, finding that including the one-time earning would be "double dipping" and that the respondent failed to prove the $650,000 transfer was a gift.

The court set the applicant's income for child support at $194,688.00 and found his property expense contributions covered his child support obligations.

The court also ordered the applicant to ensure the respondent and the parties' son were listed as beneficiaries on his extended health benefits.

The respondent brought an urgent motion for interim child support.

The applicant argued that his payment of over $6,000 per month in family home expenses should stand in lieu of child support.

The court found it could not determine urgency or the merits without further materials from both parties.

The motion was adjourned with a timetable for the delivery of responding and reply materials.