Modupe Ozufu Adesuwa Ehinlaiye

In this high-conflict family law trial, the court determined custody and access arrangements for three children following the separation of unmarried parents.

The mother sought sole custody with the children residing in Scarborough; the father sought sole custody with the children residing in Oakville.

The court found both parents had significant parenting deficits and were engaged in a toxic relationship.

The mother was actively undermining the children's relationship with their father through alienating conduct, including telling the oldest child the father was not her biological father and changing the middle child's name.

The father had chronic housing and employment instability, having been evicted multiple times.

The court ordered joint custody with a shared residential schedule, with the children residing primarily with the mother during school weeks in Scarborough to ensure housing stability, while maintaining regular contact with the father.

The court emphasized that the mother's alienating conduct must cease or she risked losing custody.

The applicant mother brought two motions to change: (1) to terminate or order supervised access to the respondent father, and (2) to vary child support.

The father had been convicted of sexual assault of the mother and had a history of emotional and verbal abuse toward both the mother and children.

The court found a material change in circumstances warranting variation of access from unsupervised to supervised at a designated access centre.

The court also found the father's evidence regarding income unreliable and increased child support to the guideline table amount based on his 2014 income.

The court imposed restrictions on the father's ability to bring future motions without leave of court.

A mother sought costs against a Children's Aid Society following the withdrawal of a child protection application.

The Society had commenced proceedings seeking supervision of the child, who had Crohn's disease, after the mother sought alternative naturopathic treatment and refused to cooperate with the Society's investigation.

The court dismissed the costs motion, finding that while the mother was a strong advocate for her child, the Society acted reasonably in investigating concerns raised by medical professionals and in seeking a minimally intrusive court order to compel cooperation.

The Society reassessed its position once information was provided and withdrew the application at the third court appearance.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for an order that the children reside with her pending the release of the trial judgment in a custody and access matter.

The respondent father brought a motion to re-open the trial to introduce fresh evidence regarding his changed circumstances following his separation from his common law spouse and his loss of rental accommodation.

The court allowed the father's motion to re-open the trial to hear evidence of his new plan of care for the children, but limited the scope of the evidence to matters arising after the close of trial.

The court reserved its ruling on the mother's motion pending the hearing of the fresh evidence.

Counsel for the applicant mother brought a motion to be removed as counsel of record in a custody application.

The motion was unopposed.

Counsel's affidavit detailed a pattern of harassing and threatening behavior by the respondent father directed at her and her family members, including contact with police.

The court granted the motion to remove counsel, finding that the evidence demonstrated criminal harassment and posed a safety risk to counsel and her family.

The court made the exceptional decision to retain the affidavit in the court file rather than removing it, citing the need for the case management judge to be aware of the respondent's concerning conduct when determining custody and access arrangements in the children's best interests.