Philip J. Clay

This decision concerns a child protection trial under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 involving the child S.W.W., born in 2017.

The Children’s Aid Society of Peel sought a protection finding and a custody order placing the child with his father, S.W., supported by the father and the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.

The mother, A.W., self-represented, sought the return of the child to her care but did not file answers to the protection applications.

The trial was intensively case managed, with the mother’s participation challenged by her failure to comply with court orders and her disruptive behaviour.

The evidence revealed significant concerns about the mother’s mental health, her refusal to send the child to school, and her hyper-vigilance and fixed delusions regarding the child’s welfare.

The child had made inconsistent statements, some likely coached by the mother.

The child was thriving in the father’s care with improved school attendance and emotional well-being.

The court found the child to be in need of protection due to risk of emotional harm if returned to the mother and ordered custody to the father with supervised parenting time for the mother, subject to conditions including mental health treatment and a flexible parenting time regime.

The applicant sought to bring a motion to change a final order concerning a high-conflict family matter, specifically regarding reunification therapy for the child, N.L. The motion was dismissed due to lack of proper service on the respondent.

The court emphasized the critical importance of the child's emotional well-being and the need for the parties to cooperate with therapeutic recommendations, noting that the previous reunification therapy was cancelled due to alleged interference.

The court also clarified its ongoing jurisdiction over contempt and change motions in this case.

This family law trial concerned parenting time and decision-making responsibility for the child N.L., who had developed a strong alignment with the father and resisted contact with the mother.

The court found the father had manipulated the child's views and obstructed necessary medical and educational treatment for the child's ADHD and ODD.

The court granted sole decision-making responsibility to the mother, ordered a gradual expansion of her parenting time, including a two-week exclusive period during summer, and mandated reunification therapy for both parents and the child.

Child support was set off due to shared parenting.

The applicant, Stephen Beech, sought a retroactive downward adjustment of child support, arguing a material change in circumstances due to job losses and career changes.

The respondent, Beata Beech, opposed, asserting Stephen was intentionally underemployed and that the separation agreement's imputed income of $100,000 should remain.

The court found a material change in circumstances but also determined Stephen was intentionally underemployed at various times.

The court imputed an income of $85,000 per year for child support from January 1, 2015, and adjusted support for other periods, granting Stephen a credit for overpayment but requiring him to continue paying a minimum amount.

The Children's Aid Society of Peel brought a summary judgment motion seeking protection findings for the child A.J. and an order for placement with the maternal aunt under Society supervision.

The child's mother and maternal aunt consented to the motion, but the father opposed the placement, advocating for the child to be placed in his care.

The court found the child to be in need of protection, a finding consented to by all parties.

Applying Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules and considering the child's best interests under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, the court dismissed the father's plan, citing concerns about his undisclosed criminal history, inconsistent living arrangements, and inability to cooperate with the maternal aunt.

The court granted the Society's motion, ordering the child's placement with the maternal aunt, emphasizing the stability and positive care provided by the aunt since the child's birth as the least disruptive alternative.

This decision addresses a request for costs brought by the father (K.D.) against the mother (P.D.) following a child protection trial.

The trial found the child in need of protection due to emotional harm caused by the mother, and custody was granted to the father.

The court applied Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, noting that the presumption of costs for a successful party does not apply in child protection cases.

While the mother's litigation conduct was deemed unreasonable and prolonged the trial, the court found it did not constitute "bad faith" under Rule 24(8) because her actions stemmed from a fixed belief related to a personality disorder, rather than an intent to inflict financial or emotional harm.

Consequently, the father was awarded partial indemnity costs, significantly less than the full recovery sought, reflecting the mother's unreasonable behaviour but not bad faith.

The Children's Aid Society of Peel brought a child protection application seeking a finding that a child was in need of protection due to emotional harm caused by the mother's actions.

The mother had made repeated unfounded allegations of sexual abuse against the father, subjected the child to numerous investigations and examinations, and created a high-conflict environment that caused the child serious anxiety and stress.

The court found that the child had suffered emotional harm as a result of the mother's pattern of making false allegations, repeatedly involving authorities, and pressuring the child to make negative statements about the father.

The court granted custody to the father with supervised access to the mother, finding that the mother's personality disorder and fixed belief system made her unable to recognize or change her harmful behavior.

Pre-trial motions in a child protection proceeding involving two children (N. and H.) brought by the Children's Aid Society of Peel.

The Society sought to admit prior court decisions as evidence of past parenting and exclude further evidence on matters already adjudicated.

The respondent father sought to exclude prior decisions and adduce evidence regarding parenting of siblings, citing a recent Court of Appeal decision quashing the parents' criminal manslaughter conviction and ordering a new trial.

The court applied the principle of res judicata and found that prior findings regarding the care of children M., Am., and N. were not displaced by the fresh evidence regarding the cause of death.

The court admitted prior decisions as evidence of past parenting and estopped the parents from calling evidence on matters already adjudicated.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion seeking resumption of parenting time, police enforcement of a court order, and a finding that the mother had moved the child's residence in contravention of a court order.

The mother sought authorization to relocate the child from Etobicoke to her parents' home in Newmarket prior to trial.

The court found that while the mother initially took the child to her parents' home for March Break during the COVID-19 pandemic, she failed to return as required by a prior court order.

The court determined that the relocation was not necessitated by the health crisis and ordered the mother to return the child to the Etobicoke residence pending trial.

The relocation issue was reserved for determination at trial.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking resumption of parenting time with his three-year-old child and police enforcement of a court order during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The parties had reached a binding agreement on February 19, 2020, providing for alternate weekend access and mid-week overnight access.

Following the closure of the child's daycare and implementation of emergency health measures, the applicant mother unilaterally withheld access from March 11 to April 3, 2020.

The court found that the mother failed to satisfy her onus to prove COVID-19 related reasons for changing the access schedule and that unilateral modifications to binding agreements cannot be condoned.

The court ordered a modified access schedule that maintained the essential structure of the parties' agreement while accommodating the daycare closure and the mother's partner's availability for exchanges.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking directions from the court regarding access to his eight-year-old son during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The father alleged that the mother had denied him access for extensive periods, with the most recent denial occurring since January 2, 2020.

The father sought either a motion or urgent case conference to address the matter.

The court found that while the matter was important, it did not meet the urgency threshold established by the Chief Justice's directive limiting court operations to urgent and emergency matters during the health crisis.

The court emphasized that the denial of access predated the pandemic and that there was no existing court order or agreement in place.

The motion was denied, and the matter was scheduled to proceed as a case conference in June or July 2020.

A custody and access dispute between separated parents of two children.

The applicant father sought joint custody and alternate week access, while the respondent mother sought sole custody and continuation of the existing limited access schedule.

The court found that the parties separated in May 2013 and that the father unilaterally implemented an alternate week arrangement in January 2015 without the mother's agreement.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer conducted two investigations recommending increased access for the father but not a full 50/50 arrangement.

The court found evidence of the father's physical abuse toward his former partners and adult daughter, though not toward the children in question.

The court ordered sole custody to the mother with an enhanced access schedule for the father based on the OCL's first report recommendations, rejecting the father's demand for equal time sharing.

The court also ordered retroactive child support and arrears payments.

A custody trial concerning a nine-year-old child, Aiden John Alvin Woods.

The mother sought custody after the father obtained a temporary custody order in August 2018.

The child had experienced significant trauma including a house fire, loss of pets, and the father's incarceration.

The father had a criminal history including domestic assault convictions.

The court found that despite the child's expressed preference to live with his father, the mother's stable home environment, receptiveness to professional advice, and improved parenting abilities made her the appropriate custodian.

The father's rigid personality, resistance to professional recommendations, verbal abuse toward the mother, and unstable living arrangements (a partially constructed trailer) weighed against him.

The court awarded custody to the mother with extended access to the father, subject to conditions regarding the safety of his residence.

A custody and access trial involving a high-conflict separation between parents of a young child.

The father sought sole custody and limited access for the mother, while the mother sought custody with equal time-sharing.

The court found both parents competent but determined the mother should have custody based on her demonstrated willingness to support the child's relationship with the father, contrasting with the father's initial proposal to relocate the child to New York with minimal maternal contact.

The court ordered alternate weekly time-sharing with the father paying child support and spousal support on a declining scale.

A child protection trial involving four children of C.D. The Children's Aid Society of Peel sought protection findings and various disposition orders.

The court found all four children to be in need of protection based on evidence of physical discipline and inadequate supervision.

The court ordered: M. (globally developmentally delayed) into extended Society care; twins Aa. and As. into the custody of their father G.B.; and D. into the temporary care of a kin caregiver C.S. for six months.

The mother's position that she had never hit her children was rejected based on the totality of evidence, including prior proceedings and the children's statements to police.

A custody and access trial involving a child who had been alienated from his father by his mother's manipulative conduct.

The applicant sought custody and reintegration therapy after years of failed access attempts.

The court found clear evidence of parental alienation and made a temporary order for a change in residence to facilitate intensive reintegration therapy through Families Moving Forward.

Following successful therapy and evidence of the child's adjustment to his father's care, the court granted sole custody to the applicant with access to the respondent at the applicant's discretion.

The court awarded costs to the applicant for the reintegration therapy expenses.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a final order dated July 22, 2015, seeking to terminate child support for two adult sons or reduce support amounts.

The applicant mother opposed termination and sought a retroactive increase in table child support due to undisclosed income increases.

The court found that the father had failed to make required annual financial disclosures.

The court suspended support for the older son (Bradley) pending proof of academic success, maintained support for the younger son (Ryan) with adjusted amounts, and ordered retroactive adjustments to table child support based on the father's actual income.

An interjurisdictional support order application where the father sought to terminate his child support obligation and obtain child support from the mother after their daughter came to reside with him in December 2015.

The mother contested the relief and sought a retroactive increase in the father's support payments.

The court found that the father had paid all required table support and that the mother had acted responsibly by setting aside funds.

The court declined to order a retroactive increase in the father's payments, finding that the delay in service and the circumstances of the child's placement did not warrant such an order.

The court ordered the mother to pay child support to the father based on her income, with arrears calculated from August 2016.

A motion to change a final child support order concerning the financial obligations of separated parents for their daughter's post-secondary education at Lakehead University.

The applicant mother sought retroactive changes to section 7 expenses and post-secondary cost sharing consistent with the separation agreement.

The respondent father sought termination of table support at the child's 18th birthday and a 50% contribution to post-secondary expenses for three years.

The court found a material change in circumstances and determined reasonable post-secondary costs, the child's contribution, and each parent's proportionate share based on income.

The court also addressed arrears for non-post-secondary section 7 expenses including dance classes, driving lessons, and a school trip.

The respondent brought a motion to set aside the registration of a child support order made by a Polish court.

The order had been obtained by the applicant without notice to the respondent while he was in Ontario with a custody order.

The court found all three grounds for setting aside the registration were satisfied: the respondent lacked proper notice and opportunity to be heard, the order was contrary to public policy given the applicant's abduction of the child and contempt of Ontario court orders, and the Polish court lacked jurisdiction.

The deemed application for child support was dismissed, and the applicant was prohibited from commencing further proceedings in Ontario without purging her contempt or obtaining leave of court.

Costs were awarded on a full recovery basis due to the applicant's bad faith conduct.