Peter Harrison

Appeal from a Superior Court order on motions to change custody, residency, and child support.

The father appealed the trial judge's dismissal of his motion to change the child's primary residence from the mother's home in Owen Sound to his apartment in Toronto, and to grant him final decision-making authority.

The father also challenged the retroactive child support award dating to January 2012.

The appellate court upheld the finding of no material change in circumstances regarding custody and residency, but allowed the appeal in part regarding child support, varying the retroactive date to June 3, 2014 (the date of the motion to change) and correcting the set-off calculation to reflect only 50% of the outstanding costs award.

The mother (applicant) sought to increase child support, and the father (respondent) sought to change the child's primary residence and decision-making authority.

The court granted the mother's request for increased child support and established arrears, offsetting them against a prior costs award owed by the mother.

The court dismissed the father's requests to change primary residence and decision-making authority, finding no material change in circumstances and that such changes were not in the child's best interests.

The court ordered continued joint decision-making with parenting coordination, paid for by the father, and made minor adjustments to exchange locations and sharing of schoolwork.

The parents and two First Nations appealed a trial decision making two First Nations children Crown wards with no access for the purpose of adoption.

The appellants argued the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors of fact, erred in finding Crown wardship was the least restrictive alternative, and that the mother received ineffective assistance of counsel.

The appeal court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence, which included significant parenting deficits, developmental delays that improved in care, and the need for stability.

The court also admitted fresh evidence but concluded it did not warrant a new trial or a change to the order, affirming that Crown wardship with no access remained in the children's best interests.

A motion to change a final custody order from 2007 in which the maternal uncle was awarded custody of a child on consent of both parents.

The mother sought to regain custody after achieving sobriety and stability following a history of substance abuse.

The court found a material change in circumstances and awarded custody to the mother, finding that the uncle's inflexibility, controlling behavior, and unwillingness to facilitate the child's relationship with her mother and paternal family were contrary to the child's best interests, despite the uncle providing a stable home environment.