Pamela Ruth Barron

The applicant brought a motion seeking a finding of contempt against the respondent for breaching a Final Order regarding income disclosure, child support adjustments, and Section 7 expenses.

The court reviewed the high threshold for contempt findings, emphasizing it as a last resort.

While acknowledging some non-compliance, the court found that the respondent had largely remedied the disclosure issues by the time of the motion and that other issues were not suitable for contempt.

The court dismissed the contempt motion but issued detailed orders for both parties to provide outstanding income and expense disclosure and to attend mediation as per the original order.

This case concerns a child protection matter focusing on access between a child, B., and her mother, S.D., following a summary judgment finding B. in need of protection and awarding joint custody to the father and maternal grandmother.

The trial addressed the extent and conditions of the mother's access, including supervision and location.

The court considered the mother's personality disorder, her inability to regulate emotions, and her "victim's stance," as well as her cannabis use and history of conflict.

The court ultimately increased the mother's access duration from the status quo but denied overnight visits and a rotating three-week schedule, allowing home visits only after CAS inspection.

The decision emphasized the child's best interests, the need to reduce conflict, and the mother's lack of insight into her issues.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a motion for a temporary order placing the child, S.M., in the temporary care and custody of the Mother, C.L., subject to supervision.

The Mother and the Office of the Children's Lawyer consented, while the Father, M.M., opposed.

The court found ample evidence that the Father's verbal outbursts, aggressive behaviour, and refusal to cooperate with the Society or exercise supervised access had caused the child emotional harm.

The Father's arguments regarding the invalidity of a prior "without prejudice" order and his non-cooperation were rejected.

The motion was granted, placing the child with the Mother under Society supervision, with specific conditions for both parents, including the Father's participation in programs and a psychiatric assessment.

A 4-year-old child, B., was apprehended and placed with her maternal grandmother under a temporary supervision order.

The Children's Aid Society (CAS) initially sought a supervision order to the grandmother but later amended its application to seek a 6-month supervision order to the father.

The CAS and father then moved for a temporary placement with the father, while the mother sought placement with her.

The court dismissed the mother's request and, after reserving on the father's request, ordered that the child remain with the maternal grandmother under the temporary supervision order, pending final determination of the amended application.

The decision emphasized the importance of continuity of care and the high threshold ("require") for changing a child's placement before a final determination, and highlighted the need for adherence to statutory timelines in child protection cases.

Following a family law motion concerning a restraining order, temporary spousal support, disclosure, reimbursement of expenses, and a cross‑motion for occupation rent and credits, the court determined the issue of costs.

The moving party was successful on the majority of issues, although she did not obtain the restraining order sought and received less spousal support than requested.

The responding party obtained only a modest credit for occupation rent and support already paid.

Applying s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court held that costs should follow the event but that full indemnity costs were not appropriate.

The court awarded partial costs of $4,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements to the moving party.

The father brought a motion seeking an order that the parties’ child attend a homogeneous French-language Catholic elementary school, while the mother sought enrollment in an English-language public school with a French immersion program.

The court applied the best interests test under s. 24(2) of the Children’s Law Reform Act.

Although the child was bilingual and the father emphasized cultural and linguistic benefits of French-language schooling, the court placed significant weight on the mother’s inability to communicate in French, assist with homework, or participate meaningfully in school activities.

The court also considered transportation difficulties and the lack of religious practice in either household despite the proposed Catholic school.

The court concluded that enrollment in a public school French immersion program better served the child’s best interests.