Murdoch John Carter

The mother brought a motion seeking recusal of the trial judge on grounds of perceived bias.

The judge had previously presided over a summary judgment motion where she determined the children were in need of protection and could not be placed in the mother's full-time care and custody.

The mother argued that the judge's prior findings and exposure to inadmissible evidence would cloud her judgment on the remaining issue of access.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no cogent evidence of actual bias or reasonable apprehension of bias.

The judge emphasized that findings regarding full-time parenting capacity were distinct from determinations regarding access rights.

The applicant father sought joint custody and unsupervised access to his child born in 2005.

The respondent mother opposed the claim and sought sole custody.

Following allegations of sexual abuse made by the child in August 2010 (which were not substantiated by police or Children's Aid Society), the mother sought to restrict access to supervised visits.

The court found that the allegations did not meet the threshold of reliability and that the father's credibility was compromised by inconsistent contact with the child, minimization of serious family issues, and involvement with the Children's Aid Society regarding physical discipline concerns.

The court ordered continued supervised access rather than the unsupervised access sought by the father.

A support payor sought an order requiring the Director of the Family Responsibility Office to refrain from suspending his driver's licence due to arrears of support.

The payor had received a First Notice of Intention to Suspend Driver's Licence and had commenced a Motion to Change the underlying support order.

The Director opposed the refraining order on four grounds: res judicata, prior dismissal of a variation claim, lack of evidence regarding need for a licence, and failure to demonstrate clean hands and a prima facie case for variation.

The court granted the refraining order, finding that the prior variation claim was not res judicata as it was based on different grounds, that the payor's need for a licence was not a statutory criterion, that the payor had clean hands, and that he had established a prima facie case for variation based on alleged loss of employment and changed circumstances.

The Children's Aid Society of Algoma brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that four children were in need of protection and that their mother was not an appropriate caregiver.

The mother had an extensive history with the Society spanning decades, including her own childhood as a Crown Ward, and demonstrated persistent inability to provide adequate supervision, maintain stable housing, manage substance abuse and mental health issues, and exercise appropriate parenting judgment.

The court found that the children were in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act and that the mother could not be placed in full-time care of the children, though supervised access would continue.

In a high-conflict custody and access dispute involving three children (Dakota, 16; Nathan, 15; and Madison, 9), the court addressed two competing motions.

The mother sought to maintain interim custody of Madison with supervised access by the father through family members.

The father sought a shared parenting schedule with equal time-sharing.

The court found that the boys, being older, should have their residence determined by their own wishes.

For Madison, the court terminated the family-supervised access arrangement and ordered that paternal access be supervised through a professional supervised access facility, finding that family supervision had been inadequate.

The court invited the Office of the Children's Lawyer to become involved and indicated willingness to reconsider the arrangement if family supervisors could provide proper assurances of their understanding of the supervisory role.

The applicant spouse brought an interim motion seeking child support for an adult child attending college, interim spousal support, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The respondent sought an order for the sale of the matrimonial home and livestock located on the property.

The court determined the respondent’s income by averaging several years of earnings due to fluctuating overtime and ordered guideline child support for the summer months while the adult child resided with the applicant, with the issue to be reviewed pending further information regarding educational expenses.

Interim spousal support was ordered based on the parties’ financial circumstances and the applicant’s unemployment, with the court declining to impute income at the interim stage.

The respondent’s motion for sale of the home and livestock was adjourned pending proper valuations to permit accurate net family property calculations.