Paddy A. Hardman

A child protection application under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act where the society sought extended society care with no access, and the respondent mother sought return of the child with supervision.

The court found the child in need of protection due to risk of physical and emotional harm arising from the mother's untreated mental health issues (severe PTSD, anxiety, depression, emotional dysregulation), ongoing substance abuse (crystal methamphetamine and marijuana), inability to follow professional direction, and lack of reliable family support.

The court determined the child was not a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child and made an order for extended society care without access, with the foster parents approved for adoption.

A costs decision following a family law application determined on June 16, 2014.

The respondent mother sought costs for the application.

The applicant father opposed the award and sought to exclude various cost items.

The court found the mother was the successful party and entitled to costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The court examined the father's unreasonable and misleading conduct throughout the litigation, including false affidavit evidence and continued attacks on the mother's parenting despite lack of substantiation.

The court awarded costs to the mother while considering the father's financial circumstances and child support obligations.

A custody and access dispute between a young father and mother regarding their child born in October 2010.

The father initially sought sole custody with no access to the mother after she relocated with the child to Orillia.

The court found that the father was not the primary caregiver, was reluctant in his parenting role, and was motivated by hostility toward the mother rather than genuine parental concern.

The mother, despite her youth and some poor decisions, was found to be the primary caregiver and more child-focused parent.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother with generous access to the father, finding that the father's inflexibility and hostility would prevent him from supporting the child's relationship with the mother.

The decision also criticized the Children's Aid Society for inappropriate interference with court-ordered access and for failing to follow proper procedures.

The Crown appealed the dismissal of a Charter section 11(b) delay application and challenged the conviction for failing to comply with section 159(3) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The respondent was charged with failing to slow down, proceed with caution, and change lanes when approaching an emergency vehicle with flashing lights on a multi-lane highway.

The trial justice dismissed the delay application and convicted the respondent.

On appeal, the court upheld both the dismissal of the delay application and the conviction, finding that the delay was largely attributable to the respondent's actions and that the respondent failed to comply with all three obligations under section 159(3).

The applicant father sought sole custody of a child born in April 2005, initially seeking joint custody with status quo access but changing his position at trial.

The respondent mother sought sole custody and child support.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, finding that the father's evidence was unreliable and evasive, with significant concerns about his parenting choices including alcohol use, exposure to violent video games, allowing the child to handle firearms, and inadequate supervision.

The mother, while having some issues with conflict management, demonstrated a stronger commitment to the child's welfare and maintained a stable primary caregiving relationship.

The court also imputed income to the father for child support purposes based on deliberate underemployment and ordered arrears and ongoing support.

A costs decision in a family law matter involving child support and custody disputes.

The mother sought child support from the father in 2009, but the father failed to provide financial disclosure and instead brought multiple motions to change custody, access, and contempt motions against the mother.

The father's counsel repeatedly failed to appear in court as directed.

The court found the father's conduct unreasonable throughout the litigation and awarded the mother costs of $9,000 payable at $200 per month, plus ordered the father's counsel to pay $910 in costs for failing to appear prepared for trial on two consecutive days.

The applicant father brought a motion for contempt against the respondent mother for failing to seek employment in the Waterloo Region as required by a consent order dated October 7, 2011.

The mother concurrently brought a motion to change the same order, seeking to remain in Lindsay with the children.

The court found the mother in contempt but proceeded to consider the motion to change on the merits, finding a material change in circumstances.

The court ordered that the children's primary residence be returned to the Region of Waterloo by September 1, 2013, with the mother maintaining primary residence if she relocates, or the children residing with the father if she does not.

A motion to change a final custody and restraining order made in 2005.

The respondent, who had been convicted of sexual assault and served a sentence, sought to remove a restraining order prohibiting contact with the applicant (mother) and children in order to obtain access.

The respondent claimed a material change in circumstances based on completion of treatment at a correctional facility and gender transition.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no material change warranting modification and that access was not in the children's best interests given the respondent's history of sexual violence, ongoing risky lifestyle choices, eight-year gap in contact, and the children's stability in their current home.

The father sought custody and child support for a child born in 2003, and sought to prohibit the mother from relocating the child from the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to Casselman, Ontario.

The mother cross-claimed for custody and permission to relocate with the child to the Ottawa area, and sought ongoing and retroactive child support.

The parties agreed to joint custody.

The court found that the mother had been the primary caregiver throughout the child's life, while the father had limited involvement in the child's education, health care, and day-to-day needs.

The father's proposed living arrangements were inadequate, and he demonstrated an inability to regulate the child's behaviour.

The mother's plan to relocate with her fiancé LN provided a more stable environment with better access to services and a lifestyle more suited to the child's needs.

The court granted primary residence to the mother and permitted the relocation.

The respondent mother brought a motion to change access arrangements made in 2001, seeking to eliminate or severely restrict the applicant father's access to their son.

The child, initially willing to attend access, began refusing visits in 2009.

The court found that both parents contributed to the deterioration of the father-child relationship through poor decision-making.

The mother was found to have been passive in encouraging access and to have subtly discouraged the relationship, while the father was found to have been rigid, critical, and insensitive to the child's preferences.

The court rejected the mother's position that the child should have unfettered discretion over access and instead imposed a structured access schedule with mandatory counselling for all parties.

A motion to change a final custody order from 2007 in which the maternal uncle was awarded custody of a child on consent of both parents.

The mother sought to regain custody after achieving sobriety and stability following a history of substance abuse.

The court found a material change in circumstances and awarded custody to the mother, finding that the uncle's inflexibility, controlling behavior, and unwillingness to facilitate the child's relationship with her mother and paternal family were contrary to the child's best interests, despite the uncle providing a stable home environment.

The father sought custody of Ayden, born in 2003, and child support pursuant to the Children's Law Reform Act and Family Law Act.

The mother cross-claimed for the same relief.

The parties had been in a relationship for approximately five months before the mother and her two older children moved in with the father in 2001.

Ayden was born during the relationship.

The mother left the father in 2007 and initially moved to Guelph, then to Skead near Sudbury in June 2011 to be closer to her family and for support.

The father opposed the move and sought custody.

The court found that the mother had been the primary caregiver throughout Ayden's life and that it was in his best interests to remain in her primary care with access to the father, despite the distance involved.