Penelope Gay 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 children's aid society brought a motion for an order placing the child in its temporary care and custody.

The respondent father and stepmother sought the child's return to their care, while the respondent mother sought unsupervised access.

The court found credible and trustworthy evidence that the child was exposed to a high conflict environment and inappropriate discipline in the father and stepmother's care, creating a risk of emotional and physical harm.

The court concluded that a supervision order would not adequately protect the child and ordered that the child remain in the temporary care and custody of the society with specified access for the respondents.

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.

In a child protection trial under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, the court found that two children continued to be in need of protection based on a real risk of serious emotional harm arising from repeated exposure to domestic conflict and the parents’ failure to protect them from that conflict.

The court rejected the society’s theory of protection based on alleged illicit drug use and school attendance, but accepted that inconsistent parental involvement, prolonged gaps in access, and failure to comply with safety planning reinforced the continued need for protection.

The court found the mother’s late-stage plan, based on residence with extended family and recent treatment engagement, was untested, not sufficiently child-focused, and did not adequately mitigate the identified risks.

Extended Society Care with the maternal aunt was ordered, together with structured access for the mother and discretionary access for the fathers.

The court also made a First Nations finding in relation to one child and addressed the implications of that status under the CYFSA.

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.

In a child protection trial concerning a newborn apprehended at birth, the court found the child in need of protection based on likely physical and emotional harm arising from the respondents’ inability to safely and consistently meet the child’s needs.

The court placed significant weight on extensive worker observations, corroborated by psychological assessments identifying profound cognitive limitations, poor follow-through, hygiene concerns, smoking-related health risks, and inability to adapt parenting to the child’s developmental needs.

Applying the governing child protection and best interests framework under the Child and Family Services Act, the court held that the risk could not be adequately managed even with outside supports.

Less disruptive alternatives, including supervision, kin placement, and an adjournment for further parenting evidence, were rejected.

Crown wardship without access and with a view to adoption was ordered.

This was a family law costs ruling following a motion concerning temporary parenting arrangements and the return of a child to the mother’s care.

The court held that the mother was the successful party because the essential relief sought was the return of the children to her primary care, while the father’s increased access reflected relief to which she had not objected.

Applying the Family Law Rules framework governing success, reasonableness, and quantum, the court found no unreasonable conduct by the mother and concluded that she was presumptively entitled to costs.

Taking into account the significance and complexity of the issues, the reasonableness of counsel’s bill, and the father’s limited evidence on inability to pay, the court fixed costs at $1,200.00 all inclusive with 60 days to pay.

On a temporary parenting motion, the court determined the best interests of five children in a high-conflict family dispute involving conflicting affidavit evidence and allegations of instability, abuse, and poor parenting on both sides.

Applying the best-interests factors under s. 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act and emphasizing stability, continuity of care, and the importance of keeping siblings together, the court found the least disruptive arrangement was for the children to be in the mother's primary care.

The court also relied on the Children's Aid Society position that it had no concerns with either parent having custody of or access to the children.

The father was granted significant parenting time.

A child protection proceeding concerning a temporary care and custody order under s. 51 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The child had been apprehended following concerns about exposure to ongoing high-conflict family dynamics, violence between adults, and allegations of sexual misconduct within the family.

Multiple relatives sought custody or supervision arrangements, while the children's aid society sought continued custody with discretionary access.

The court found credible evidence establishing reasonable grounds to believe the child would likely suffer emotional harm if returned to the prior family environment.

Concluding that supervision conditions would not adequately protect the child given the intensity of conflict and credibility concerns, the court ordered that temporary care and custody remain with the society.

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.