Penelope Gardner

The applicant mother sought orders regarding parenting time and decision-making for the parties' two children.

The respondent father engaged in a prolonged campaign of coercive control, domestic violence, and false reporting to child protection agencies.

The court found the father's behaviour caused significant emotional harm and instability for the children.

Applying the best interests of the child test under section 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act, the court suspended the father's parenting time until he demonstrates a material change in circumstances through trauma counselling and a mental health assessment.

The court also issued a one-year restraining order against the father and awarded costs to the mother.

Following a motion regarding post-secondary expenses for the parties' daughter, the respondent sought full indemnity costs of $9,124.75.

The applicant argued that each party should bear their own costs or that any award should be minimal.

The court found the respondent was the successful party but noted neither party made an offer to settle and the respondent's bill of costs was disproportionate.

The court ordered the applicant to pay costs of $4,500 inclusive of HST.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking an order that the post-secondary expenses for the parties' adult child be shared equally between the parents and the child.

The respondent mother opposed, arguing she could only afford to pay the table amount of child support due to her limited financial means.

The court found that the child had the means to make a significant contribution to her own expenses and that the mother had limited financial ability compared to the father.

The court ordered the mother to pay the equivalent of table child support directly to the child, with the father responsible for the remaining balance of the reasonable expenses.

The father brought a motion for summary judgment seeking parenting and child support orders.

The mother consented to the parenting terms but opposed child support, claiming undue hardship due to her limited income and having three other children in her full-time care.

The court granted joint decision-making responsibility, with the father having final authority if disputes cannot be resolved.

The court dismissed the mother's undue hardship claim due to insufficient evidence regarding her household standard of living and ordered her to pay table amount child support and arrears based on her most recent line 150 income.

The parties, the child's uncle (primary caregiver) and the biological parents, brought various motions regarding custody, access, mobility, and contempt.

The father sought to have the uncle found in contempt for denying physical and telephone access.

The mother sought primary residence or increased access.

The uncle sought to relocate with the child to Perth.

The court struck portions of the father's affidavit for containing argument and case law.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding the father had been unreasonable and prioritizing the child's best interests.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the uncle's loss of housing in Cornwall, the court permitted the uncle to temporarily relocate to Perth with the child.

Both parents were granted increased access, but requests for police enforcement clauses were denied to prevent further conflict.

The applicant children's aid society sought Crown wardship of a five-year-old child who had been apprehended due to severe developmental delays and the parents' refusal to seek or accept medical assistance.

The parents opposed the application, seeking the child's return without conditions, and demonstrated a pattern of hostility and non-compliance with child protection workers and medical professionals.

The court found the child in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act, concluding that the parents failed to provide necessary treatment to alleviate the child's emotional harm and developmental delays.

Crown wardship was ordered with no access granted to the parents, as they failed to prove that access would be meaningful, beneficial, and not impair future adoption opportunities.