Molly C. Leonard

The Appellant Mother appealed a child protection order that placed her child in the Father's custody with supervised access for the Mother.

The Mother alleged denial of procedural fairness, errors in admitting child's hearsay statements, allowing an expert to testify beyond his expertise, and an erroneous discretionary access order.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of procedural fairness, proper handling of child's statements, appropriate expert testimony, and valid discretionary access order under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

A child protection agency brought a motion for summary judgment on a status review application concerning a child found to be in need of protection due to parental conflict.

The respondent father opposed the motion and sought a full trial.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring trial.

The evidence established that the child remained at risk due to ongoing conflict, the father had not had contact with the child in over three years, and the father refused to agree to basic behavioral conditions necessary for supervised access to resume.

The court ordered the child remain in the mother's care under agency supervision with access to the father at the agency's discretion.

Following a family law trial addressing custody, access, child support, section 7 expenses, and limited property claims, the court resolved outstanding parenting and financial disputes between the parties.

The court found the respondent father had manipulated and cancelled access and used it as leverage in disputes with the mother, requiring detailed access conditions to ensure stability for the children.

The father’s reported income was found unreliable, and the court accepted expert accounting evidence to impute an income of $115,000 for child support purposes under the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The father was ordered to pay guideline child support, contribute proportionately to section 7 expenses, and repay funds obtained from the mother including loans and proceeds from the sale of her jewellery.

Additional orders addressed travel with the children, RESP management, arrears payments, and divorce.

The applicant, a Polish resident, sought the return of her seven-year-old daughter who was wrongfully removed to Ontario by the respondent father in July 2014.

The applicant had been exercising sole custodial rights in Poland and did not consent to the child's removal.

The respondent claimed the applicant was an unfit parent and that returning the child would expose her to grave risk of harm.

The court found that the applicant had exercised custodial rights, did not consent to the removal, and that the respondent's allegations of harm were not credible.

The child's school records and testimony from a childcare provider demonstrated the child's well-being in Poland and her expressed desire to return to her mother.

The court ordered the child's return to Poland pursuant to the Hague Convention.