Family and Matrimonial Law - OCJ

The society brought a status review application regarding a 10-year-old child with moderate to severe autism who had been placed in the temporary care of the maternal grandmother.

The mother sought the child's return, arguing there were no ongoing protection concerns.

The court found that intervention remained necessary due to the mother's unresolved substance abuse, mental health issues, and inability to work cooperatively with the child's service providers.

The court concluded it was in the child's best interests to be placed in the permanent care and custody of the maternal grandmother, who had established a comprehensive network of supports and under whose care the child was thriving.

The mother was granted specified in-person and virtual access.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for a temporary order to place two children in the care of their mother, with supervised access for the father, due to concerns of physical and emotional harm arising from severe post-separation conflict.

The court found that both parents had pre-intervention charge of the children under a shared parenting schedule.

However, the court concluded there were reasonable grounds to believe the children would suffer harm if returned to joint care, citing the father's use of physical discipline, coercive control, and family violence.

Finding that supervision terms would be inadequate to protect the children in joint care, the court placed the children in the temporary care and custody of the mother and ordered supervised access for the father.

The Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection and an order for extended society care.

The father conceded the finding but argued that a trial was required for disposition, proposing that the child be placed in his care under a supervision order while residing with the paternal grandparents.

The court granted the finding that the child was in need of protection but concluded there was a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding disposition and access.

The court ordered a mini-trial with focused oral testimony to determine whether a supervision order or extended society care was in the child's best interests.

The parties, who separated in 2019, engaged in a high-conflict parenting dispute regarding their two children.

The father sought a shared parenting schedule and split decision-making responsibility, while the mother sought primary residence and sole decision-making responsibility.

The court found that the father had engaged in family violence by weaponizing the mother's past involvement in sex work against her and had acted manipulatively regarding parenting arrangements and child support.

The court rejected the Office of the Children's Lawyer's recommendation for shared parenting, finding it would increase conflict and destabilize the children.

The mother was granted primary residence and sole decision-making responsibility, with the father maintaining alternate weekend and Tuesday parenting time.

The court also fixed child support arrears at $19,187.90 and ordered the parties to share section 7 expenses equally.

The parties, unmarried parents of a three-year-old child, separated after a brief relationship marked by high conflict and incidents of domestic violence.

The mother sought sole decision-making responsibility and permission to relocate with the child from North Bay to Sudbury, while the father sought joint decision-making and equal parenting time in North Bay.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility, finding that the parties' inability to communicate and the father's lack of trust made joint decision-making unworkable.

The court also authorized the relocation to Sudbury, concluding it was in the child's best interests given the mother's role as primary caregiver, her need for family support, and the father's failure to foster a cooperative relationship.

The father was granted generous parenting time and ordered to pay child support.

A custody and access dispute between two parents of a six-year-old child.

The father sought sole custody with the child relocating to Orangeville, while the mother sought to maintain the status quo with the child remaining in her care in Toronto.

The court granted sole custody to the mother, finding that the child had been living in a stable home environment for four years, was thriving in her school and community, and that disrupting this arrangement would be traumatic.

The father was granted specified access on a two-week rotating basis.

A significant issue involved the mother's hesitancy regarding vaccinations; the court granted the father sole decision-making authority over vaccination decisions, including COVID-19 vaccination if it becomes available.

The applicant sought make-up access time with the subject child and costs following a motion to change.

The respondent had unilaterally terminated the applicant's regular weekend access during the COVID-19 public health emergency, in breach of a valid court order.

The parties negotiated a resolution to most substantive issues, leaving only the make-up access and costs issues to be determined.

The court awarded the applicant two full weekends of make-up access and costs of $1,500.00.

Motion review of an emergency restraining order granted without notice on April 2, 2020.

The applicant sought to restrain the respondent from direct or indirect contact with her and their infant daughter, and from approaching their residence or workplace.

The respondent contested the order, denying allegations of abuse and arguing he had voluntarily left the home.

The court found evidence of emotional and aggressive behaviour, including the respondent's admission to breaking down a locked door.

The court granted a modified restraining order prohibiting direct contact and requiring communication through counsel, while establishing supervised access to the child through a third party facilitator.

The court also established a temporary parenting schedule pending a case conference.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society sought Crown wardship with no access for two young children apprehended at birth.

The respondent parents sought return of the children with consent to a six-month supervision order.

Following a two-phase trial spanning nearly two years, the court ordered Crown wardship based on the parents' significant mental health diagnoses (father with schizophrenia, mother with a significant personality disorder), the mother's inability to regulate anger and control abusive behavior toward the children and father, the father's lack of engagement and failure to recognize safety issues, and the parents' inability to work therapeutically with child protection services.

The court found that return would be traumatizing to the children.

Access to the biological parents was denied, but access between the two sisters was granted.

The respondent father brought a motion to set aside a default order dated November 6, 2017, which granted sole final custody of a four-year-old child to the mother and awarded child support of $442 per month based on an imputed annual income of $49,100.

The father argued he was actively involved in the proceeding and nearly completed his materials when noted in default.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the father's supporting affidavit lacked substance and failed to disclose adequate grounds for a defence on the merits.

The father had failed to file required financial documentation despite multiple extensions and nearly eight months since service of the application.

A father residing in Afghanistan sought an order for weekly Skype access to his seven-year-old daughter who lives in Canada with her mother, stepfather, and half-brother.

The father claimed he had a right to know his biological daughter.

The mother opposed the application, arguing that the child had no relationship with the father, believed the stepfather was her biological father, and that access would be harmful to the child's stability and wellbeing.

The court dismissed the father's application for access, finding that the child's best interests were served by maintaining her stable family environment and that the risks of introducing contact with a stranger far outweighed any potential benefits.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to terminate the father's access to twin Crown wards (M.M. and D.M.).

The father had missed numerous access visits due to work schedule conflicts and other factors.

The society argued that the father's inconsistent access created instability and negatively impacted the children's behaviour.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial, including questions about the quality of the father-child relationship, the society's conduct in suspending access without court order, and the children's actual preferences regarding contact with their father.

The mother brought a motion to vary a temporary care and custody order placing the child with the father, seeking to return the child to her care.

The father opposed and brought a cross-motion to continue the placement with modified access terms.

The court applied a four-step test under section 51(6) of the Child and Family Services Act to determine whether material, risk-based changes in circumstances warranted varying the placement.

While finding that the mother had made significant positive changes (addressing alcohol misuse, resolving deportation issues, and exiting domestic violence), the court declined to return the child to the mother's care pending trial due to ongoing parental conflict, unresolved concerns about the child's educational needs and potential learning disabilities, and insufficient evidence regarding the stability of the mother's household.

The court modified the access schedule to provide the mother with weekend and holiday access while maintaining the father's primary care arrangement.

A child protection application brought by Brant Family and Children's Services seeking Crown wardship without access for two young Indigenous children was resolved by consent order.

The children's mother sought their return to her care subject to supervision.

The court approved a staggered reintegration plan whereby the younger child would immediately return to the mother's care under supervision for twelve months, and the older child would be reintegrated over a two-month period.

The central legal issue concerned the interpretation of section 70 of the Child and Family Services Act, which imposes time limits on society wardship.

The court held that the statutory time limits should be viewed as presumptive ceilings rather than hard caps, allowing for extensions consistent with the child's best interests.

The Kenora Rainy River District Child and Family Services brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a further six-month Society Wardship Order for two children found to be in need of protection due to emotional harm.

The children had been apprehended in October 2014 due to mental health concerns including self-mutilation and suicide ideation.

They were placed in a specialized treatment foster home in Southern Ontario where they demonstrated significant improvement.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking return of the children to her care, but provided no clinical evidence or cooperation with the Agency.

The father agreed with the Agency's position and was noted in default.

The court found no genuine issue requiring trial and granted the Society Wardship Order for six months, finding that the children's best interests required continuation of their specialized placement.

The maternal family members of a four-year-old child sought a motion for consistent, unsupervised access to the child following the death of the child's mother.

The respondent father opposed the motion, arguing that as the sole surviving parent, he should retain discretion over access decisions.

The court found that while the father had legitimate concerns about the family's conduct, his decision to restrict access was partially arbitrary and not in the child's best interests.

The court granted limited unsupervised access to the child's grandmother and aunt, with strict conditions regarding conduct and communication.

The court also struck paragraphs of the father's application containing defamation claims, finding the Ontario Court of Justice lacked jurisdiction over such claims, and refused to transfer the proceeding to Superior Court.

A child protection summary judgment motion brought by the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking a declaration that a child born in 2013 is in need of protection and should be made a Crown ward without access for adoption purposes.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing there was a genuine issue requiring trial regarding whether she had made sufficient progress in addressing the issues that led to the child's removal.

The court found overwhelming evidence supporting the need for protection finding and that Crown wardship without access was in the child's best interests.

The mother's history of serious abuse of previous children, lack of engagement with recommended services, uncooperativeness with the society, poor judgment, and significant cognitive and mental health issues that were not amenable to change all weighed against return to parental care.

The applicant mother sought permission to relocate with the child to Nova Scotia prior to trial.

The respondent father opposed the relocation.

The court found that the mother had been the de facto custodial parent, that the child was thriving in her care, and that compelling financial circumstances existed justifying the move.

The court granted temporary custody to the mother and permitted the relocation to Nova Scotia, while retaining jurisdiction over all custody, access, and support issues.

The court found that the mother would inevitably prevail at trial and that the only remaining triable issue was the nature and extent of the father's access.

The applicant mother sought spousal support from the respondent father, retroactive to January 2009.

The parties were married in 1985 and separated in May 2008.

The father had custody of two of their four children and was paying down substantial matrimonial debt through a Consumer Proposal.

The mother had a sporadic employment history and was receiving social assistance.

The court found that while the mother satisfied the threshold for entitlement to spousal support on both compensatory and need-based grounds, the father's ongoing child support obligations and lack of ability to pay rendered him unable to provide spousal support.

The mother's claim was dismissed entirely, including the retroactive claim, due to her blameworthy delays in complying with disclosure orders.

The applicant children's aid society sought child protection orders for two children.

The older child, who had complex behavioural needs and diagnoses of ADHD and depression, experienced significant conflict and emotional abuse from her stepfather, leading to suicidal ideation.

The court found her in need of protection and made her a Crown ward with access to the mother at the society's discretion.

The younger child had historically been subjected to inappropriate discipline, including being locked in his room, but was currently thriving.

The court found the younger child was historically in need of protection but declined to make an ongoing supervision order, allowing him to remain in the mother's care without conditions.