Minipreet Bhatia

The respondent brought a motion to change a support order within an enforcement proceeding in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The applicant sought dismissal of the motion for lack of jurisdiction.

The court found that the Ontario Court of Justice lacks jurisdiction to change an order made in the Superior Court of Justice and dismissed the motion.

The court also identified multiple procedural flaws in the respondent's motion, including improper style of cause, improper naming of parties, and failure to serve the Director of the Family Responsibility Office.

The court awarded costs to the applicant but reduced the amount in light of the respondent's self-represented status and language barriers.

A stepmother sought temporary access to a nine-year-old child on alternate weekends and three weeks during summer.

The biological parents opposed all access.

The court found that the stepmother had formed a settled intention to treat the child as her own and had a close, loving relationship with the child spanning from age one to age nine.

The court granted limited temporary access on one weekend every four weeks, finding that parental autonomy does not extend to excluding a person who has assumed the role of a third parent.

The court rejected the parents' allegations against the stepmother as lacking credibility and found the parents were acting arbitrarily and in bad faith.

A child protection summary judgment motion brought by the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking findings that a child born in 2008 be found in need of protection and made a crown ward without access for adoption purposes.

The mother opposed the motion and sought dismissal or alternatively a six-month society wardship order with access.

The court found the child in need of protection under sections 37(2)(b), (g), and (g.1) of the Child and Family Services Act based on evidence of physical harm risk, emotional harm risk, and the mother's pattern of neglect.

The court granted the society's motion and made the child a crown ward without access, finding no genuine issue requiring trial on either the finding or disposition.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking orders to restrict the respondent father's contact with the child's dentist and attendance at the child's school.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion seeking custody, increased access, appointment of the Office of the Children's Lawyer, a non-removal order, and addition to the birth certificate.

The court granted the mother's motion regarding dental care and school attendance, restricting the father's contact with the dentist and limiting his school attendance to parent-teacher interviews scheduled separately from the mother's.

The court denied the father's request for custody but granted increased access, including extended weekend access, midweek visits, and summer holiday access.

The court declined to appoint the OCL and noted that adding the father to the birth certificate is a matter for vital statistics.