Nandishi Bekah

The children's aid society brought a protection application regarding three children who had been exposed to emotional harm due to extreme high-conflict litigation between their parents.

The court had previously convened a hearing on its own motion due to concerns about the children's safety and the society's inaction.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children were at risk of harm and could not be adequately protected by a supervision order, particularly given the mother's refusal to cooperate and the father's lack of contact.

The court ordered the children to be placed in the temporary care and custody of the society.

The respondent father sought directions regarding the conduct of the family law case after a children's aid society commenced a protection application.

The court noted that while the Child, Youth and Family Services Act stays proceedings under the Children's Law Reform Act, it may not stay proceedings under the Divorce Act.

However, to prevent parallel litigation, the court exercised its jurisdiction under section 106 of the Courts of Justice Act to stay the parenting claims in the family law proceeding, directing that those issues be addressed in the child protection court.

The court clarified that financial claims in the family law proceeding were not stayed.

This ruling addresses ongoing high-conflict family litigation, specifically concerning the mother's non-compliance with previous court orders and direct communication with the court, and the father's improper ex parte motion for a change in primary residence.

The court dismissed the father's ex parte motion but ordered an in-person hearing under section 81(4) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, to determine if grounds exist for a child protection hearing or for the children to be brought to a place of safety.

The Durham Children's Aid Society was directed to file an affidavit explaining its actions regarding the child protection concerns.

This decision addresses a long motion in a high-conflict family litigation case between a mother and father concerning parenting and support.

The mother withdrew her application and refused to participate in the father's motion, even attempting to call the police in court.

The court heard the father's unopposed motion, dismissing many of his requests due to lack of jurisdiction (e.g., child welfare-like orders, compelling a "Miglin Release") or insufficient evidence (e.g., sole decision-making, imputed income, life insurance).

The court ordered the continuation of the existing week-about parenting schedule, mandated both parents' participation in previously ordered custody/access and mental health assessments, and prohibited both parties from bringing any further motions without leave due to their history of abusive litigation conduct.

The court also cancelled a matrimonial home designation on the paternal grandfather's property.

No costs were awarded, as the judge found both parties contributed to the litigation's chaos.

The parties were involved in a combined family law and civil trial.

The wife claimed the date of separation was January 2009, while the husband claimed October 2012.

The court found the date of separation was January 2009 and dismissed the husband's claims for equalization and spousal support due to his failure to provide financial disclosure and lack of evidence.

In the civil action, the court found the husband committed civil fraud by making false representations to the wife regarding funds from a diamond mining venture, resulting in a loss of over $1.2 million.

The court awarded damages for fraud against the husband and found his mother was unjustly enriched by receiving funds belonging to the wife.