M. 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 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 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 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 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.

The applicant brought a motion seeking orders to file Trial Scheduling Endorsement Forms (TSEF), secure life insurance benefits, and for leave to bring a motion for interim spousal support despite a settlement conference having already occurred.

The court granted the consent orders regarding the TSEF and life insurance.

However, the court denied leave for the interim spousal support motion, finding that the applicant failed to adequately explain the significant delay in bringing the claim and noting that the matter should proceed directly to trial.

The applicant moved for the partition and sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The respondent opposed the sale, seeking exclusive possession to assess the home's value and potentially purchase the applicant's interest.

The court granted the motion for partition and sale, finding no malicious or oppressive conduct by the applicant and noting the respondent failed to establish a realistic claim for exclusive possession under section 24 of the Family Law Act.

The court ordered the property to be listed for sale and directed the parties to exchange updated financial statements to account for personal property sold post-separation.

The parties resolved ongoing child support on consent but disputed retroactive child support for 2018.

The applicant argued his 2018 income should not include a mandatory pension payout, while the respondent's income should be averaged due to her sick leave.

The court excluded the portion of the pension payout reinvested into an RRSP but included the remainder, finding the applicant failed to establish unfairness.

The court used the respondent's actual 2018 income and ordered the applicant to pay retroactive child support based on a set-off of the parties' incomes.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion during the COVID-19 court suspension to dispense with the respondent father's consent for their child's counselling and to suspend the father's shared parenting time due to alleged failures to physically distance.

The father brought a cross-motion to enforce the existing week-about parenting order.

The court found the matters urgent but dismissed the mother's request to suspend access, finding no evidence the father was ignoring public health directives.

The court ordered the resumption of the shared parenting schedule and authorized the child's counselling, requiring both parents to participate in the intake process.

The applicant was successful on a motion regarding the interim parenting schedule for the parties' two children.

The court considered the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, noting that while the applicant's email offer did not meet the formal requirements of Rule 18, it was similar to the final result.

The court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $1,800 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a final order placing the child in the custody of the father and stepmother.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking the return of the child to her care.

The court found that the mother continued to struggle with undiagnosed health issues that impeded her ability to care for the child, and that the child's health and behavior had significantly improved in the care of the father and stepmother.

Applying the framework for summary judgment in child protection proceedings, the court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and granted the society's motion, ordering custody to the father and stepmother with supervised access for the mother.

The applicant father sought an interim order prohibiting the respondent mother from relocating their two children to Nova Scotia.

The mother sought an interim order permitting the relocation and for child support.

The parties separated following an altercation, and the mother moved to Nova Scotia where she had secured employment.

Applying the Gordon v. Goertz and Plumley factors, the court found that the mother was the primary caregiver, the move was in good faith, and the children wished to relocate.

The court permitted the interim relocation, finding a strong probability the mother would prevail at trial, and ordered the father to pay $639 per month in child support.

The applicant children's aid society brought a motion for temporary care and custody of an infant child.

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

The court reviewed the mother's extensive history with the society, which included five older children being made Crown wards due to her unaddressed mental health and personality issues.

Finding that the mother had not yet made sufficient progress in specialized therapy to mitigate the risk of harm, the court granted the society's motion and placed the child in temporary society care with supervised access.

The applicant father sought an interim order prohibiting the respondent mother from relocating the parties' four-year-old child to Deep River, Ontario, and requesting primary care.

The mother had been the primary caregiver since birth and moved to reside with her new partner.

Applying the Gordon v. Goertz and Plumley factors, the court found that the mother was likely to succeed at trial regarding primary care and that the move was made in good faith.

The court dismissed the father's motion, permitting the interim relocation pending trial.