Penny J. Jones

The Respondent brought a motion to set aside a final uncontested child support order, including substantial arrears, arguing lack of actual notice and an arguable defense.

The court found the Respondent's claims of non-receipt of documents and lack of awareness lacked credibility, noting his history of non-disclosure and sophisticated litigant status.

While acknowledging a potential triable issue for prospective support based on his retirement, the court dismissed the motion to set aside the fixed arrears, emphasizing the Respondent's willful non-disclosure and its negative impact on the administration of justice.

The court directed the Respondent to bring a new motion to change for future support with proper financial disclosure.

This family law trial addressed decision-making authority, child travel, primary residence, parenting time, and spousal/child support for a separated couple with one child.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making authority, allowed her to travel with the child for up to 30 days annually without the father's consent, and confirmed the child's primary residence with the mother (with a GTA restriction).

The father's parenting time was gradually expanded.

The mother was found entitled to spousal support on contractual and compensatory grounds, with the father ordered to pay time-limited support of $373 per month for two years.

Retroactive spousal support was denied due to the father's financial hardship.

Child support was set at $543 per month based on an imputed income for the father.

This decision addresses the issue of access to a child, J.M., after a finding of need for protection and the mother's consent to an extended care order for the child.

The mother, M.M., sought frequent in-person access with a view to eventual return, while the Children's Aid Society of Toronto intended to place J.M. for adoption and proposed very limited or no face-to-face contact.

The court applied the "best interests" test under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, considering the mother's untreated schizophrenia, inconsistent access history, and the child's need for permanency.

The court granted the mother non-face-to-face access via cards, letters, emails, and school reports, and denied access to the father, M.O.

This is a child protection proceeding under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The court ordered a parenting capacity assessment to be conducted by Dr. Walton-Allen to assess the parents' capacity to care for their five children.

At trial, the mother's counsel challenged the admissibility of the assessment report, alleging that Dr. Walton-Allen misrepresented her qualifications.

The mother contended that Dr. Walton-Allen is a school psychologist, not a clinical psychologist as represented, and therefore lacks the expertise to conduct such a complex assessment.

The court held a voir dire to determine the admissibility of the expert evidence.

The court found that Dr. Walton-Allen intentionally misrepresented her qualifications and that her expertise as a school psychologist was insufficient for the complex psychological and social issues involved.

The court struck the assessment report from the record and disqualified Dr. Walton-Allen from providing expert opinion evidence.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society sought Crown wardship with no access for two young children apprehended at birth.

The respondent parents sought return of the children with consent to a six-month supervision order.

Following a two-phase trial spanning nearly two years, the court ordered Crown wardship based on the parents' significant mental health diagnoses (father with schizophrenia, mother with a significant personality disorder), the mother's inability to regulate anger and control abusive behavior toward the children and father, the father's lack of engagement and failure to recognize safety issues, and the parents' inability to work therapeutically with child protection services.

The court found that return would be traumatizing to the children.

Access to the biological parents was denied, but access between the two sisters was granted.

A child protection case involving two young children apprehended at birth due to parental neglect, domestic violence, and unsafe living conditions.

The Children's Aid Society sought a Crown wardship order.

The parents opposed this, with the mother seeking return of the children under supervision and the father proposing placement with his mother and sister.

Following a mini-trial to address genuine issues regarding parenting capacity, the court granted Crown wardship without access to the biological parents, finding that the children's best interests were served by permanent placement for adoption with their foster parents.

This is a child protection case under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act involving two young children apprehended at birth due to deplorable living conditions, lack of prenatal care, domestic violence, and parental capacity concerns.

The Children's Aid Society sought Crown wardship with no access for adoption purposes.

The parents sought return of the children to the mother's care, with the father seeking alternative return to his care.

The court found that a parenting capacity assessment report constituted a genuine issue requiring trial determination and ordered a "mini-trial" under Rule 16(6.2) of the Family Law Rules to hear evidence from the psychologist and the parents before deciding whether a full trial was necessary.

A custody and access trial involving two children where the father sought joint custody and specified access, while the mother sought sole custody with restricted access.

The court found a history of domestic violence, high conflict between the parties, and the father's difficult courtroom behaviour.

The court granted sole custody to the mother, ordered supervised access for the first six visits followed by limited unsupervised access, and addressed child support, section 7 expenses, communication protocols, and a restraining order.

The father's personality and inability to cooperate with professionals were significant factors in the decision.

This is a child protection trial under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act concerning a child born in 2012.

The Children's Aid Society sought a finding that the child was in need of protection under sections 37(2)(b) and 37(2)(g) of the Act, and sought a crown wardship order for adoption purposes.

The mother sought the return of the child to her care with or without supervision, or alternatively, access if the child was made a crown ward.

The father did not participate in the proceedings.

The court found the child was in need of protection based on the mother's failure to adequately care for, provide for, supervise or protect the child, and her pattern of neglect resulting in physical and emotional harm, including developmental delays.

The court made a crown wardship order without access, finding that the mother lacked the parenting capacity to meet the child's needs despite extensive supportive services, and that the relationship between mother and child was not significantly beneficial to the child.

This is a costs decision following a trial in a family law matter involving custody and access.

The applicant was successful at trial and obtained an order granting supervised access to the respondent with various restrictions, including a 100-metre exclusion zone from the applicant's home, workplace, and child's school, and limiting communications to a designated program.

The respondent, who was self-represented, opposed the costs award and made unfounded allegations against the applicant's counsel.

The court awarded costs on a full recovery basis, finding both that the applicant was the successful party and that the respondent acted in bad faith through persistent attempts to have the applicant's counsel removed from the record by complaining to the judge, legal aid, and the Law Society.

This is a status review application under the Child and Family Services Act concerning a child in care of the Children's Aid Society.

The child was placed in care due to parental drug addiction and related neglect.

The Society sought a final order of crown wardship without access for adoption purposes.

Both parents sought return of the child under supervision orders, with access as an alternative.

The court found that both parents had uncontrolled long-standing drug addictions, engaged in a dysfunctional and violent relationship, and lacked the capacity to provide adequate care.

The father exhibited severe behavioral and emotional control issues.

The court determined that crown wardship without access was in the child's best interests, as neither parent could provide the stability and support the child required.

This is a judgment after trial in a family law application concerning access to a child.

The mother sought sole custody (granted on consent), child support (granted on consent), and supervised access to the child.

The father sought unsupervised access with gradual expansion to alternate weekends.

The court found that the father's volatile temper, manipulative personality, concerning comments about the child's body, and pattern of emotional abuse toward the mother and her counsel created serious risks to the child's safety and wellbeing.

The father refused to undergo recommended psychological and parenting capacity assessments despite knowing these were conditions for unsupervised access.

The court ordered that access remain supervised at a government-operated supervised access centre for two hours, three out of four weekends, with strict conditions on communication and contact with the mother.

This is a dispositional phase decision in a child protection matter involving two children, J.C. (age 6½) and N.Y. (age 11), who were apprehended from their grandmother's care.

The Children's Aid Society sought Crown wardship with no access for J.C., arguing he was adoptable.

The grandmother sought return of J.C. to her care or, alternatively, access if Crown wardship was ordered.

The court found that J.C. had serious behavioral and mental health issues requiring long-term residential treatment and was not adoptable in the foreseeable future.

The court made J.C. a Crown ward but granted access to his grandmother and sister, finding that such access would not impair future adoption opportunities and that the familial relationships were meaningful and beneficial to the child.

The Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion under Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules seeking a finding that a child was in need of protection under sections 37(2)(b)(i) and 37(2)(g) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The child had refused all contact with her father for nearly three years following a period during which the father had enforced access orders with police assistance, resulting in the child being physically forced into his vehicle on multiple occasions.

The child suffered bruising during one such incident.

The father contested the motion, arguing that parental alienation by the mother was the cause of the child's refusal and that a trial was necessary to determine the factual basis for any protection finding.

The court granted the summary judgment motion, finding that the disputed facts regarding the cause of the child's refusal were not material to the outcome, as the child's wishes and best interests would result in the same disposition regardless of whether alienation had occurred.

The applicant sought sole custody of the child Sofia, subject to reasonable access to the respondent, child support pursuant to the child support guidelines, section 7 expenses, and costs.

The respondent sought sole custody or, in the alternative, joint custody.

The court found that the applicant has been the primary caregiver since separation and granted her sole custody.

The respondent was granted generous access including overnight visits on Tuesday and Thursday, alternate weekend access, and extended holiday access.

The court imputed income to the respondent for child support purposes and ordered guideline support.

The court rejected the respondent's allegation that the applicant engaged in a deliberate plan to deprive him of access, finding instead that the parties were mismatched individuals who experienced an acrimonious separation but whose access arrangements had regularized over time.

The father brought a contempt motion after the mother permanently relocated with their child to New Brunswick in violation of a non-removal court order.

The mother responded with a motion to change seeking permission to relocate, and the father brought a cross-motion to change seeking custody or defined access terms.

The court applied the framework from Gordon v. Goertz and found a material change in circumstances.

After considering all relevant factors, the court determined that the child's best interests lay with remaining in New Brunswick with the mother, who had established a stable life with family support.

The court granted the mother's motion to change, deleted the non-removal clause, and established reasonable access terms for the father.

Although the mother was found in contempt for violating the court order, the court declined to impose jail time or a fine, instead denying costs to the successful party as a penalty for her unilateral action.

Two young persons were charged with sexual assault and gang sexual assault, as well as robbery with violence, arising from an incident on September 20, 2009, in Toronto.

The complainant, a sex worker, engaged in sexual activity with four young men in a stolen red Honda vehicle and was subsequently beaten and robbed.

The court found that while the defendants participated in the robbery, the Crown failed to prove sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court determined that although the complainant may have had subjective misgivings about the sexual activity, her outward conduct and words were consistent with consent, and the defendants could have held an honest but mistaken belief in her consent.

The court rejected the Crown's argument that consent was vitiated by fraud or the subsequent robbery.

This is a status review application under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act concerning a child apprehended at birth due to concerns about the mother's mental health, transience, lack of prenatal care, and domestic violence in the parental relationship.

The child was initially placed with the mother under a supervision order but was re-apprehended when the mother failed to maintain housing and comply with program expectations.

The father sought return of the child under a supervision order, while the Society sought a Crown wardship order with access.

The court found that the father, despite his love for the child and participation in various programs, remained too dependent on professionals and family members to accomplish basic parenting tasks, had breached court orders regarding contact with the mother, and lacked the capacity to provide stable, permanent care.

The court ordered Crown wardship with supervised face-to-face access three times per year to both parents, finding that such limited access would not impair the child's future opportunities for adoption while preserving the beneficial relationship between the child and her biological parents.

The applicant sought to vary child support terms under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act.

The respondent failed to provide required financial disclosure despite court orders and multiple adjournments.

The court imputed income to the respondent based on historical tax returns showing a pattern of annual increases.

The court ordered retroactive child support from June 1, 2006, and prospective support including guideline amounts for the period when the child was a minor and reduced amounts for post-secondary education expenses.

The respondent's non-compliance and failure to appear resulted in an order made in his absence with inferences drawn against him.

A custody and access application brought by the mother against the father regarding their daughter Emily.

The mother sought sole custody, no access to the father, child support, a restraining order, and permission to travel and obtain identity documents.

The father cross-applied for custody or alternatively reasonable access.

The court found no credible evidence of sexual or physical abuse by the mother's new partner despite the father's allegations.

The court granted sole custody to the mother, denied all access to the father, rescinded child support arrears, and imposed a restraining order.

The decision turned on the father's uncontrolled anger, hostile behavior, and unreliability as a witness.