Paul W. Nicholson

The applicant, Sornia Archer, brought a motion to change a prior custody order, seeking sole decision-making and primary residency of her child, DAC.

The respondent, Michelle Williams, opposed this.

The court considered the child's best interests, including his strong and consistent views to have no contact with his biological mother, Ms. Archer, and to remain with Ms. Williams.

The court found Ms. Williams had intentionally sabotaged the relationship between the child and Ms. Archer.

Despite this, the court prioritized the child's expressed wishes and emotional well-being, denying Ms. Archer's request for contact.

The court also addressed child support, ordering Ms. Archer to pay support to Ms. Williams until the child turns 16, with a review at that time based on whether a meaningful relationship has been established.

Costs were awarded against Ms. Williams due to her unreasonable conduct and delay tactics.

The Respondent Mother brought an urgent motion in response to the Durham Children’s Aid Society's decision to suspend all face-to-face access at its Supervised Access Centre due to the COVID-19 crisis.

The court found the matter urgent, emphasizing the need to balance child protection with maintaining parental relationships during the pandemic, and ordered a teleconference to establish an appropriate access regimen.

The Kawartha-Haliburton Children’s Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the child, JB, is First Nations, was removed from parental care due to protection concerns, is in need of protection under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (CYFSA), and should be placed in extended society care for adoption without parental access.

The parents opposed, seeking access.

The court found JB to be a First Nations child and in need of protection due to hazardous home conditions, ongoing parental substance abuse (including carfentanil), and inability to meet the child's developmental and emotional needs.

Despite acknowledging parental poverty and mental health issues, the court determined that the Society had fulfilled its obligations and that extended society care for adoption, with no parental access, was in the child's best interests, particularly given the foster family's demonstrated commitment to preserving the child's Indigenous cultural identity.

The Kawartha-Haliburton Children’s Aid Society (KHCAS) brought a motion for summary judgment seeking extended society care for three children (VP, JP, RP) and termination of parental access, citing physical and emotional harm, substance abuse, and domestic violence.

The parents opposed the orders and sought access.

The court found the children in need of protection under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (CYFSA), noting the parents' extensive history of child protection involvement, their inability to meet the children's significant needs, and their failure to engage in meaningful therapeutic intervention.

Despite the children's Indigenous heritage, the court determined that extended society care with access to the paternal aunt and grandfather, but not the parents, was in the children's best interests, ensuring cultural connection while providing permanence and addressing their complex needs arising from trauma.

The Applicant Mother sought costs for a temporary child and spousal support motion.

The court awarded her $7,500, significantly less than requested, finding her partially successful.

The Respondent Father, who was self-represented, sought his own costs but was not awarded any.

The court considered the parties' success, the importance and complexity of issues, and their unreasonable conduct regarding settlement offers and income disclosure.

The Applicant Mother brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support following an almost 8-year marriage.

The primary issue was the Respondent Father's income for support purposes, as he was a fund manager with complex income streams.

The court relied on an expert's report for income up to 2016, declining to accept either party's extrapolations for 2017/2018.

The court found the Applicant Mother established a prima facie entitlement to spousal support and that the Respondent Father had the ability to pay.

Temporary orders were made for child and spousal support, and for the division of Section 7 expenses, aiming to achieve 'rough justice' and preserve the pre-separation standard of living without an in-depth analysis better suited for trial.

This addendum to reasons for judgment formally terminated the respondent father's child support obligation, effective May 1, 2017, a point counsel agreed had been inadvertently omitted from the original judgment.

The Respondent Father brought a motion to terminate his child support obligation, while the Applicant Mother sought a retroactive increase in child support and Section 7 expenses dating back to 2001.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the father's significantly increased income and the children's independence.

Applying the D.B.S. factors, the court determined that the mother's delay in seeking variation was unreasonable, but the father was blameworthy for not voluntarily disclosing his increased income.

The court ordered the father to pay $25,000 in retroactive child support for the three years prior to the motion, rejecting both parties' calculations.

However, the mother's new claim for Section 7 expenses was dismissed, as the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a new claim for relief after the children were no longer 'children of the marriage' and no prior order for such expenses existed.

This 13-day trial concerned custody, access, and child support for an 11-year-old child, as well as a contempt motion against the applicant mother.

The court found the mother's conduct to be characterized by dishonesty, manipulation, and a lack of integrity, impacting her capacity to parent.

The child's wishes to reside primarily with the father and have unstructured access with the mother were given significant weight.

The court granted sole custody and primary residential care to the father, with structured access for the mother.

No retroactive or ongoing child support was ordered from either parent.

The mother was found in contempt for failing to comply with court orders, resulting in a $250 fine.

The mother (J.L.B.) brought a motion for various temporary orders, including the return of her child to her care under a supervision order.

While the placement of the child with the mother was agreed upon, three supervision terms and one access term remained in dispute.

The court imposed a term requiring the mother to have an alternate caregiver when using marijuana.

It rejected the Children's Aid Society's policy of an absolute ban on corporal punishment, instead applying the Supreme Court of Canada's analysis of s. 43 of the Criminal Code, which permits mild, corrective physical discipline under specific circumstances.

The court also rejected the mother's request to impose supervision terms directly on the 9-year-old child and affirmed the mother's autonomy in deciding access arrangements with extended family, requiring her to consider the child's views.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer also participated in the hearing.

The Durham Children's Aid Society brought a motion within a status review application to place three children in its temporary care and custody.

The children had previously been found in need of protection and placed under a supervision order with their parents, which was subsequently breached due to the mother's mental health crisis and the parents' and maternal grandfather's failure to report changes or comply with conditions.

The court considered the children's best interests under subsection 64(8) and 37(3) of the Child and Family Services Act, finding that the existing supervision order was insufficient and there was a continuing risk of harm if the children returned to parental care.

The court explicitly disagreed with the necessity of proving a material change in circumstances for temporary orders in child protection proceedings, emphasizing the fluid nature of such cases.

The motion was granted, placing the children in the Society's temporary care.