Family and Matrimonial Law - OCJ

The Children's Aid Society of the County of Dufferin brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order for extended care with access for the child S.R.W.D. The self-represented parents opposed, arguing genuine issues required a trial.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, emphasizing the child's need for permanency and the parents' failure to address long-standing concerns regarding substance use and parenting capacity despite extensive CASD support.

The child was placed in extended care with supervised access for the parents under specific conditions.

The Nogdawindamin Family and Community Services brought a child protection application and a motion for temporary care and custody concerning three children.

The court critically reviewed the society's procedural haste in bringing the application and motion on short notice, noting it circumvented standard Family Law Rules for respondent reply times and motion notice periods.

The judge emphasized the importance of procedural fairness, particularly given the power imbalance between societies and parents in child protection cases.

The court dismissed the society's motion for temporary care and custody and access claims, instead making a temporary care and custody order keeping the children in their current customary and kinship placements without society supervision, adjourning the society's motion for a proper hearing.

This trial addressed parenting and child support arrangements for the parties' six-year-old son.

The mother sought primary residence, sole decision-making responsibility, and retroactive child support, while the father sought joint decision-making and equal parenting time, opposing retroactive support.

The court found the mother's evidence of family violence and the father's controlling behavior credible, which significantly influenced the decision on decision-making responsibility.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, increased the father's parenting time (but denied equal time), and ordered the father to pay substantial retroactive child support due to blameworthy conduct and financial abuse.

The applicant father sought joint custody of the parties' child with primary residence with the respondent mother and weekend access, or alternatively sole custody.

The respondent mother sought sole custody and permission to relocate with the child from Brampton to London, Ontario for employment purposes.

The court found the respondent was the primary caregiver and granted temporary permission for relocation, finding the move would not materially interfere with the applicant's access and would provide financial benefits to the family unit.

The court also imputed income to the applicant for child support purposes.

A custody and access dispute between separated parents regarding their child, Jarvis Lebrun.

The mother sought joint custody with primary residence and liberal access for the father.

The father sought to maintain the status quo with the child residing primarily with him.

The court appointed the Office of the Children's Lawyer to represent the child's interests.

After considering the child's clear and consistent preference to reside with the mother, the support system available to the mother, and the less-than-ideal circumstances of the father's care arrangement, the court awarded joint custody with primary residence to the mother and liberal access to the father.

The Children's Aid Society of Peel brought a child protection application seeking a finding that a child was in need of protection due to emotional harm caused by the mother's actions.

The mother had made repeated unfounded allegations of sexual abuse against the father, subjected the child to numerous investigations and examinations, and created a high-conflict environment that caused the child serious anxiety and stress.

The court found that the child had suffered emotional harm as a result of the mother's pattern of making false allegations, repeatedly involving authorities, and pressuring the child to make negative statements about the father.

The court granted custody to the father with supervised access to the mother, finding that the mother's personality disorder and fixed belief system made her unable to recognize or change her harmful behavior.

An application under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act for child support for three children.

The claimant, residing in Minnesota, sought support from the respondent, residing in Ontario.

The respondent initially failed to respond but later attended hearings and provided oral evidence.

The court imputed the respondent's annual income at $36,000 based on his lifestyle and actual earnings, despite his tax return showing only $8,353.

The court ordered child support of $737 monthly per the guidelines table, retroactive to February 1, 2020, and credited the respondent for direct payments made to the claimant.

A Form 14b motion brought by Brant Family and Children's Services seeking a final order in accordance with an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The court found the child continues to be in need of protection and that placement with paternal grandparents is in the child's best interests.

However, the court rejected many of the proposed access terms as overly broad and not properly tailored to harm reduction.

The court modified the order to remove conditions requiring parents to complete programming and demonstrate sobriety as prerequisites to access, while maintaining supervision and a restriction on the father's residence in the grandparents' home.

Motion review of an ex parte order granting sole custody to the mother and terminating the father's access to the children.

The mother alleged extensive sexual abuse of the children by the father and sought to maintain the access suspension.

The father sought restoration of access and appointment of the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The court found that while allegations of abuse existed, the evidence was largely unproven by child protection authorities and appeared to be filtered through the mother's accounts.

The court declined to order access at that time due to the psychological harm risk to the children, regardless of the veracity of the allegations, but expressed serious concerns about the mother's pattern of making escalating allegations and the Children's Aid Society's withdrawal from the matter.

A child protection society brought a motion to place four children in the care of their paternal grandparents, subject to society supervision.

The mother opposed the motion and sought return of the children to her custody.

The court found that the mother had proactively addressed the addiction issues that originally prompted the society's intervention, had completed treatment, and was meaningfully engaged in ongoing services.

The court determined that the protection concerns could be adequately mitigated through a supervision order and that returning the children to the mother's care was consistent with Anishinaabe cultural traditions and the remedial purposes of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The court ordered the children placed in the mother's custody subject to supervision and specific conditions.

The applicant sought a restraining order under section 35 of the Children's Law Reform Act against the respondent following the end of a short-term intimate relationship.

The respondent initially challenged the court's jurisdiction, arguing the parties were not spouses or cohabitants.

The applicant presented evidence of persistent harassment including threatening text messages about contacting Children's Aid Society, unauthorized circulation of intimate photographs, surveillance at the applicant's residence, and continued contact despite explicit requests to cease.

The respondent, appearing self-represented, filed an unsigned and undated answer denying the allegations and providing an implausible account of events.

The court found the respondent's evidence lacked credibility and granted a final restraining order prohibiting all direct and indirect contact and requiring the respondent to remain 200 metres from the applicant and her children.

Paternal grandparents sought leave to bring an urgent motion for joint custody and primary care of two children (ages 5 and 3).

The children's father had wrongfully removed them to Turkey in breach of a 2017 custody order.

The mother obtained a Hague Convention order for their return in May 2019 and subsequently obtained temporary custody.

The court dismissed the grandparents' request for an urgent motion, finding no evidence of abduction or threat of harm by the mother, no immediate concern that could not await resolution, and noting the grandparents' delay in seeking court intervention.

Instead, the court ordered a priority case conference to be held by teleconference.

A family law trial concerning access, safety protocols, and section 7 expenses for a child born to unmarried parents who separated in 2013.

The applicant sought orders regarding timely access exchanges, safety protocols for farm access, reunification therapy, and contribution to section 7 expenses.

The respondent, a veterinarian living on a farm, sought removal of penalty clauses and an order for the applicant to attend counselling for alleged interference with access.

The court imposed limited terms for access resumption, rejected the proposed safety protocols, declined to order counselling for the applicant, and awarded partial contribution to counselling expenses.

A mother sought a motion for the return of her infant son to her care or to the paternal grandparents' care following the Children's Aid Society's temporary suspension of all supervised access and parenting support programs due to COVID-19.

The court dismissed the motion seeking return to parental care and the alternative claim for residence with paternal grandparents, finding insufficient evidence and lack of cooperation with court directions.

The court upheld the Society's temporary suspension of face-to-face access as justified by public health concerns, while acknowledging the importance of physical contact between mother and child under normal circumstances.

The applicant mother brought a motion for contempt against the respondent father for denying her access to the two minor children (ages 15 and 13, both with special needs) beginning in March 2020, citing COVID-19 concerns.

The father had also allegedly failed to facilitate electronic communication and discussed litigation with the children.

The court found that neither parent believed the other posed a health risk.

The parties consented to a temporary without prejudice order reinstating the access schedule, with both parents to encourage the children to attend visits and communicate electronically at least three times weekly.

The court emphasized the need for parental cooperation during the pandemic crisis.

Two urgent COVID-19 access motions were brought in an ongoing high-conflict custody and access proceeding.

The father sought enforcement of court-ordered access and makeup time after the mother unilaterally suspended access on March 27, 2020, citing COVID-19 concerns.

The mother sought to suspend all in-person access pending further court order, offering only remote contact.

The court found the father's motion met the urgency threshold and determined that the mother failed to provide specific evidence that the father's actions were inconsistent with COVID-19 protocols.

The court ordered that the existing access arrangement continue with modifications, suspending only the midweek Wednesday access and granting makeup access to compensate for the unjustified denial.

A motion review concerning custody and access of a child following a trial judgment.

The respondent father refused to comply with the trial judge's custody order awarding custody to the applicant mother and attempted to invoke a prior interim order instead.

The respondent failed to return the child on the scheduled date and sent a cease-and-desist letter asserting the interim order remained valid.

The applicant brought an emergency motion for the child's return.

The court suspended all in-person access pending further order, finding the respondent ungovernable by law and a serious risk to the child's wellbeing.

Limited phone or video access was permitted at the applicant's discretion.

The matter was adjourned for review after the COVID-19 emergency.

Costs were awarded to the applicant.

An emergency motion heard in chambers concerning a custody dispute between two parents.

The respondent father had retained the child in violation of a final custody order made by Justice P. Clay at trial, which awarded custody to the applicant mother with limited access to the father.

The father had appealed the trial judgment to the Superior Court and sought a stay of the order.

The court found that the father's retention of the child constituted a blatant breach of the valid court order and that the father's assertion that the order was null and void was legally unfounded.

The court issued an emergency order requiring immediate apprehension and return of the child to the mother's custody and suspended all access by the father pending further court order.

This motion to change involved competing applications by both parents regarding custody, decision-making authority, and parenting time for their 10-year-old daughter.

The mother sought sole custody and changes to the parenting schedule, while the father sought sole custody and increased parenting time.

The court found no material change in circumstances warranting a change in primary residence, but found a material change in circumstances regarding major decision-making due to significantly increased conflict between the parties.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, terminated the joint custody arrangement, and modified the parenting schedule to reduce direct parental engagement while maintaining the father's meaningful relationship with the child.

The respondent brought a motion for release of the applicant's medical records.

The applicant was successful in opposing the motion.

The applicant sought costs on a substantial recovery basis in the amount of $9,253.27, arguing the respondent acted in bad faith.

The court awarded costs on a partial recovery basis of $2,500.00, finding that while the applicant was the successful party, the respondent's conduct did not constitute bad faith.

The court also found the applicant's claimed hours and administrative costs to be excessive and disproportionate to the limited issue before the court.

Costs were ordered to be paid in two instalments.