Norman Lee

Following a family law trial where the applicant mother was largely successful on issues of primary parenting, residence, and decision-making, the court determined the issue of costs.

The respondent father had some success on minor issues, and both parties had behaved unreasonably at times.

The court found the applicant was the largely successful party and awarded her costs of $13,895 on a partial indemnity basis.

This trial decision addresses parenting and child support for a four-year-old child born from a brief, high-conflict relationship.

The Mother sought primary decision-making and residence, while the Father sought equal shared parenting and a parallel parenting regime.

The court dismissed the Father's allegations of sexual assault against the Mother due to insufficient evidence.

The court determined that the child's primary residence would remain with the Mother, citing the child's stable environment and the impracticality of the Father's proposed school arrangements.

Decision-making was split, with the Mother having final say on health and education, and the Father on extracurricular activities, both requiring consultation.

The Father's parenting time was gradually increased, and child support was ordered based on the Father's income and imputed income for the Mother.

The accused, Jamie Farrell-Cote, was sentenced for sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and exposure involving a 12-year-old complainant when he was 20.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the abuse of a child and breach of trust, and mitigating factors such as the accused's youth at the time, lack of predatory behaviour, and subsequent pro-social conduct.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for child abuse offences while balancing the gravity of the offence with the offender's moral blameworthiness.

A global sentence of 30 months imprisonment was imposed, along with various corollary orders.

The accused, J. F.-C., was charged with multiple sexual offences against the complainant, M.P., who was 12 years old at the time of the alleged incidents in 2008.

The charges included sexual assault (s. 271), sexual exploitation (s. 151(a)), invitation (s. 152), and exposure for a sexual purpose (s. 173(2)) under the Criminal Code.

The court assessed the complainant's narrative, acknowledging inconsistencies common in adult testimony about childhood events, but found her evidence credible regarding the core allegations.

Despite the complainant's infatuation and compliance, the court determined that J. F.-C. knew M.P. could not consent.

The accused was found guilty on counts 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 12.

Following a prior summary judgment finding that the children were in need of protection under s. 37(2) of the Child and Family Services Act, the court conducted a disposition trial to determine the appropriate order under ss. 57 and 57.1 of the Act.

The court considered competing plans: returning the children to the mother under supervision, leaving them with the father under supervision, or granting custody to the father.

Evidence included concerns about the mother’s home conditions, limited cooperation with the child protection agency, the influence of a boarder who exercised harsh discipline, and the mother’s difficulty implementing parenting supports.

The children had lived with the father for approximately 18 months and were adjusting well academically and socially.

Applying the best interests factors in s. 37(3), the court concluded that the children’s safety, stability, and developmental needs were best served by granting custody to the father.

The applicant Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that two children were in need of protection and an order placing them with their father for nine months.

The mother opposed the motion and sought the return of the children.

The court granted summary judgment on the issue of protection, finding no genuine issue for trial given the overwhelming evidence of harsh parenting and emotional harm in the mother's care.

However, the court dismissed summary judgment on the issue of disposition, finding that the children's consistently expressed wishes to return to their mother's care created a genuine issue requiring a trial to determine their best interests.

A motion to change a prior custody order arising from a high-conflict parenting relationship was heard after a previous trial had ordered joint custody with each child primarily residing with a different parent.

The court found that the parents’ ongoing inability to communicate or make joint decisions regarding medical treatment, schooling, and other matters constituted a material change in circumstances under s. 17 of the Divorce Act.

Evidence demonstrated that the joint custody arrangement had become unworkable and that the conflict was negatively affecting the children.

The court concluded that continuing joint custody would risk harm and that decision‑making authority should be vested separately with each parent.

Sole custody of one child was granted to each parent while maintaining the existing residential arrangements, along with detailed provisions addressing access, communication, counselling, and child support.

In a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, the court determined whether an infant should remain with the mother or be placed with the father.

The evidence included a long history of child protection involvement concerning the mother, prior custody losses of several children, concerns about relationships exposing children to risk, and a parenting capacity assessment identifying ongoing issues with insight and responsibility.

The father had no protection history and had been caring for the child for approximately one year with support from extended family, during which the child was thriving.

The court found the child to be in need of protection while in the mother’s care pursuant to s. 37(2)(b)(g) of the Child and Family Services Act.

Considering the best interests factors under s. 37(3), the court ordered custody to the father without supervision and granted the mother conditional access.