Patrick W. Dunn

The respondent brought a summary judgment motion seeking custody of two of the parties' three children.

The applicant opposed the motion, arguing that the children's preferences should be explored at trial and that cross-examination was necessary.

The court granted the motion, finding that sufficient evidence regarding the children's best interests was already available through the Children's Lawyer's reports and observations.

The court awarded custody of Louis and Nikolas to the respondent, noting the children's consistent preferences and the applicant's failure to facilitate access to the respondent.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking sole custody of the child with primary residence continuing with the applicant, alternate weekend access for the respondent, shared holidays, child support based on imputed income, and costs.

The respondent opposed the motion and requested a trial on all issues.

The court found no genuine issue for trial and granted the summary judgment motion.

The court awarded sole custody to the applicant, confirmed alternate weekend access for the respondent, established a detailed holiday sharing arrangement, set child support at $160 per month based on an imputed annual income of $20,000, and fixed arrears at $2,000 as of September 1, 2012.

Application under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, 2002 to change a child support order originally made by the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta on July 31, 2008.

The respondent sought to reduce his child support obligations based on changed financial circumstances.

The court recalculated arrears for each year from 2008 to 2012, adjusting the respondent's imputed income based on actual tax assessments and pension receipts.

The court found total arrears of $65,282 as of June 30, 2012, but exercised discretion to fix arrears at $40,000 due to the respondent's financial circumstances.

The respondent was ordered to pay $359 per month in child support going forward based on an imputed income of $45,000, and to pay the applicant's costs of $1,250.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking findings that a child was in need of protection and requesting placement with the father under supervision.

The father brought a concurrent motion for custody.

The mother opposed both motions.

The court found that the child suffered emotional harm due to the mother's pattern of alienating the child from the father, withholding access contrary to court orders, coaching the child to make false abuse allegations, and failing to address the child's medical and developmental needs.

The court granted both motions, placing the child in the sole custody of the father with specified access to the mother, and terminated the father's child support obligation.

The respondent brought a motion to transfer family law proceedings from Brampton to Stratford.

The applicant sought custody of the parties' child, born in 2008, and the parties had been sharing custody on a week-to-week basis since their separation in 2009.

The child had connections to both jurisdictions: the applicant resided in the Peel Region (Oakville/Mississauga) for approximately three years, while the respondent resided in the Stratford area for approximately one year and ten months.

The court dismissed the motion to transfer, finding that neither jurisdiction offered substantial convenience and that maintaining the case in Brampton was in the best interests of the child and parties, considering factors such as legal representation continuity, the child's connections to Peel Region (physician, dentist, daycare), and financial burden on the applicant.

The applicant, D.B., sought sole custody of his child, A.W.-B., born July 2010, under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The child had been apprehended by the Children's Aid Society of the Region of Peel following unexplained serious injuries in October 2010.

Following comprehensive Pathways assessments in summer 2011, the child was placed in D.B.'s care under society supervision.

The respondent, J.W., the child's mother, failed to file responding material and was noted in default.

The court granted sole custody to D.B. based on his demonstrated parenting ability, the respondent's inadequate parenting capacity as identified in the Pathways assessment, and her irregular access attendance.

The respondent was ordered to provide financial disclosure for determination of child support and special expenses contributions at a future return date.

The applicant sought to establish access to his two children following a case conference.

The parties reached a consent agreement for supervised access on alternate Sundays.

The court addressed several contested issues including the location of supervision (community-based versus access centre), random drug and alcohol testing, parenting courses, mental health counselling, police checks, and the children's attendance at the applicant's wedding.

The court granted most of the applicant's requests while imposing conditions designed to protect the children's welfare and address the respondent's concerns regarding the applicant's past mental health and substance use issues.

The respondent brought a motion to transfer a family law application from Brampton to Pembroke.

The applicant sought custody of their child, born in Petawawa, and had relocated to Mississauga without the respondent's consent after initially representing she would return.

The court applied the test from Re: D.J.C. and W.C. to determine the child's ordinary residence, considering where the child had predominantly resided, the forum of convenience, and the circumstances of how the case came before the court.

The court found the child ordinarily resided in Petawawa and transferred the case to Pembroke, noting the applicant's deceitfulness in removing the child and then claiming Peel Region as the ordinary residence.

The applicant brought a motion for child support based on an imputed income of $100,000 for the respondent in 2010.

The respondent, a self-employed real estate salesman, had reported minimal income to tax authorities but demonstrated substantial lifestyle expenditures and large bank deposits.

The court found that the respondent's business expense deductions were excessive and not adequately supported by documentation.

The court imputed an income of $100,000 to the respondent and ordered child support of $880 per month retroactive to January 1, 2010.

The court also ordered the respondent to contribute to special expenses including after-school care and summer camp.

The respondent brought a motion for specified access to the child, seeking to expand upon the existing access order dated 8 April 2011.

The respondent requested additional access on various occasions including special family events, extended summer access, and permission for family representatives to conduct access exchanges.

The court found the respondent to be a committed father and granted certain requests while denying others.

The court granted three weeks of summer access in 2012, access to a wedding and trip to Florida, and permitted designated family members to conduct access exchanges.

The court denied requests for additional weekday access for lessons, extra holiday access pending further agreement on special occasions, and certain specific date requests.

The court directed that the Children's Lawyer provide input on outstanding issues regarding special occasions and holiday arrangements.

The applicant sought custody of the parties' child, Luca, born in 2009.

The respondent opposed the application.

The court granted the applicant's motion for custody based on his stable living situation, lack of criminal charges, responsible employment, and the respondent's pending criminal charges and potential incarceration.

The respondent was granted alternate weekend access.

The court also addressed child support, access exchanges, and vacated certain restrictive conditions imposed by a previous order.

The court imposed a restriction requiring leave of court before either party could bring further motions.

A motion to change custody arrangements for a child born in 2002.

The child had been in the custody of her maternal grandparents since 2007 but was returned to her parents in 2010.

Following criminal charges against the mother arising from a vehicle collision, the father sought sole custody while the mother sought sole custody.

The court granted a temporary order for joint custody between the parents, with the mother having primary residence and the father having regular monthly access.

The court considered the child's expressed preferences, the potential incarceration of the mother, and the need for the father to have decision-making authority in such circumstances.

An application under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act for child support brought by a mother residing in Newfoundland and Labrador against a father residing in Ontario.

The applicant sought guideline child support retroactive to February 2000.

The respondent did not dispute paternity but claimed a verbal agreement that he would not pay support and that the applicant had not requested support for approximately eleven years.

The court denied retroactive support but ordered prospective support at a reduced amount due to the unique circumstances and the respondent's claimed hardship.

The respondent sought to modify a custody and access arrangement by requesting shared parenting on a weekly basis, arguing he had maintained regular involvement with his son since infancy, maintained stable employment and family circumstances, and lived in close proximity to the applicant.

The applicant opposed the motion, arguing the child was thriving under the current arrangement and that the respondent's motivation was partially financial.

The Children's Lawyer recommended maintaining sole custody with the applicant and increasing access to include alternate Thursday overnights.

The court accepted the Children's Lawyer's recommendations and dismissed the motion, finding that the child was performing well under the current arrangement and that the child himself preferred the status quo.

A custody and access trial involving two children where the applicant sought sole custody or joint custody with final decision-making authority, while the respondent sought sole custody.

The court awarded sole custody to the respondent, finding that the applicant lacked the ability to cooperate with the respondent as a co-parent, had made numerous unfounded complaints to child protective authorities, and had emotionally abused the children through constant criticism of their mother.

The respondent demonstrated superior parenting ability, financial stability, and commitment to the children's education and welfare.

The applicant was granted alternate weekend access with strict conditions regarding punctuality for access exchanges.