P.W. Dunn

The applicant mother sought a determination that the child was habitually resident in Ontario and that an Ontario court should exercise jurisdiction over custody and access matters.

The respondent father opposed the application.

The child was born in Ontario but spent approximately 17 months of his 24-month life in Ecuador with both parents before the family came to Canada in October 2016.

Following a separation and altercation in Canada, the respondent retained the child's passport, preventing the applicant from returning to Ecuador.

The court found that the child's habitual residence was Ecuador, that substantial evidence regarding the child's best interests was available in Ecuador, and that on the balance of convenience, Ecuador was the appropriate forum.

The court declined jurisdiction and ordered the respondent to release the child's passport and documents to the applicant, along with travel costs to Ecuador.

The respondent brought a motion to file an amended answer over three-and-a-half years after filing the original answer, seeking to change final orders that had been in place for nearly three years.

The respondent sought joint custody with shared residency, substantially increased access, termination of child support obligations, and dismissal of the applicant's spousal support claim.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that an amended answer should not be accepted in proceedings to amend final orders, and that accepting it would disadvantage the applicant and restart the entire litigation.

The court held that the proper forum for such requests is a motion to change, not an amended answer under the Family Law Rules.

The Children's Aid Society of the Region of Peel brought a motion for summary judgment seeking statutory findings that three children were in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act and requesting their placement with their father.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking the return of two of the three children to her care.

The court found that the children had suffered physical harm and neglect at the hands of the mother, and that there was a risk of further harm.

The court made statutory findings under multiple subclauses of section 37(2) of the Act and ordered the children placed in the sole care of their father, with the mother receiving supervised access twice monthly at a community access center.

The respondent brought a motion for custody of the parties' child, and the applicant opposed and brought a cross-motion for custody.

The court awarded temporary custody to the respondent mother, finding her to be the primary caregiver with superior parenting capacity.

The applicant's attempts to limit the respondent's access, unilateral decision-making regarding the child's care, and credibility concerns regarding his truthfulness and respect for the respondent as a co-parent were determinative factors.

The court granted the applicant alternate weekend access and mid-week overnight access, but rejected a 50-50 arrangement due to the parties' inability to communicate effectively and lack of clarity regarding the applicant's caregiving routine.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion seeking temporary care and custody of three children: M.M. (age 13, non-verbal with global developmental delay), and twins A.B.1 and A.B.2 (age 5).

The respondent mother, C.D., opposed the motion and sought return of the children to her care, with or without supervision.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children would suffer harm if returned to C.D. due to her history of physical discipline, lack of insight into protection concerns, and inconsistent parenting.

The court granted the Society's motion, placing M.M. in the Society's temporary care and the twins in their father G.B.'s care subject to Society supervision.

A Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion seeking statutory and protection findings under the Child and Family Services Act, and an order for Crown wardship of a child apprehended at birth.

The respondent parents had previously been convicted of manslaughter in the death of another child due to malnutrition and failure to provide necessaries of life.

Two other children had been made Crown wards without access.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues for trial regarding whether the child was in need of protection and the appropriate disposition, despite the serious history of parental neglect and the parents' lack of demonstrated change.

The applicant sought to vary a child support order from $1,129.00 per month to $650.00 per month based on a hardship argument, and requested that arrears be fixed at zero.

The applicant lived in British Columbia while the respondent resided in Ontario.

The court dismissed the hardship argument due to insufficient evidence, contradictions in the applicant's materials, and the applicant's failure to comply with disclosure orders.

The court fixed arrears and established new child support obligations based on the applicant's actual income, along with orders for special expenses contributions and annual income disclosure.

The respondent brought a motion to change a child support order dated April 7, 2010, which required him to pay $823.00 monthly based on an imputed income of $54,720.00.

The respondent sought to expunge all arrears and have child support recalculated based on his actual income.

The applicant opposed the motion and sought to maintain the arrears with only a $15,000.00 reduction.

The court found that the respondent had overpaid child support in prior years and imputed minimum wage income for 2014 when the respondent was unemployed.

The court determined there were no arrears as of September 8, 2016, and suspended the child support order pending determination of the respondent's 2016 income.

The court addressed competing motions regarding custody, access, and parenting arrangements for a four-year-old child.

The respondent sought to continue joint custody with primary residence, while the applicant sought modifications to access arrangements and proposed mediation for dispute resolution.

The court maintained the existing joint custody arrangement with the respondent retaining primary residence, established specific weekend and weekday access schedules for the applicant, imposed a 20-kilometre relocation restriction on the respondent, and awarded costs to the respondent.

The court declined the applicant's proposals for mediation and additional access on the respondent's weekends, finding the existing arrangements to be in the child's best interests.

The respondent brought a motion to set aside the registration of two support orders issued by a Polish court (dated November 27, 2012 and July 23, 2013) on the grounds that he did not receive proper notice or a reasonable opportunity to be heard in the Polish proceedings.

The applicant sought to maintain the registration.

The court found that the respondent did not receive notice of the initial Polish proceedings and was not given a reasonable opportunity to be heard, despite providing a financial statement at a Polish consulate interview.

The court set aside the registration of both orders.

The applicant sought sole custody of the child, permission to relocate from Mississauga to Kitchener, child support, retroactive child support, and travel provisions.

The respondent sought sole or joint custody with the child remaining in Mississauga and child support.

The court found that the applicant had a closer emotional bond with the child and was better positioned to meet the child's special needs, including speech and language development.

The court awarded sole custody to the applicant and permitted relocation to Kitchener.

The respondent was ordered to pay child support of $643 monthly from November 2015, with arrears of $6,430 to be paid at $200 monthly.

Access was to be arranged by mutual agreement between the parties, with the respondent to drive to Kitchener to collect the child and the applicant to arrange return transportation.

The respondent brought a motion to add the biological father of one of the children as a party to a motion to change a separation agreement.

The respondent sought to have the biological father contribute to child support.

The applicant opposed the motion, arguing that a separate application would be required to seek contribution from a biological parent.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion, finding that the procedures for a motion to change do not permit the addition of a new party, and that the existence of the biological father does not constitute a material change in circumstances between the original parties to the separation agreement.

The applicant, a Polish resident, sought the return of her seven-year-old daughter who was wrongfully removed to Ontario by the respondent father in July 2014.

The applicant had been exercising sole custodial rights in Poland and did not consent to the child's removal.

The respondent claimed the applicant was an unfit parent and that returning the child would expose her to grave risk of harm.

The court found that the applicant had exercised custodial rights, did not consent to the removal, and that the respondent's allegations of harm were not credible.

The child's school records and testimony from a childcare provider demonstrated the child's well-being in Poland and her expressed desire to return to her mother.

The court ordered the child's return to Poland pursuant to the Hague Convention.

The respondent brought a motion for summary judgment in a custody application concerning their child.

The applicant opposed the motion.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial based on affidavit evidence.

The respondent had been the child's primary caregiver for over four years, with strong support from his family and physician.

The applicant lacked a coherent care plan, had financial difficulties, demonstrated anger management issues, posed a flight risk, and had not maintained respectful communication with the respondent or the court.

The court granted the respondent's motion and awarded him sole custody.

A custody and access dispute involving a four-year-old child, Sophia Franco dos Santos Rego, born March 16, 2010.

The applicant, Victor Rego, sought sole custody, child support from the respondent, and various financial recompense.

The respondent, Claudia Santos, sought sole custody with supervised access for the applicant.

The court found that the respondent engaged in a sustained pattern of parental alienation, deliberately frustrating access orders and making derogatory statements about the applicant in the child's presence.

The respondent was found to suffer from a delusional disorder, maintaining irrational beliefs about the applicant's role in the child's life despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The court awarded sole custody to the applicant, finding that continued custody with the respondent posed real and present risks to the child's emotional and psychological well-being.

Access by the respondent was placed in the applicant's discretion pending professional assessment of appropriate access arrangements.

An applicant in child protection proceedings brought an application for court-appointed legal counsel, arguing she had exhausted legal aid appeals, could not afford private counsel, and found the issues too complex.

The Attorney General opposed the application.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while legal representation would be beneficial, the applicant was intelligent and articulate with sufficient capacity to represent herself.

The applicant had rejected the Attorney General's offer of funded counsel on a repayment basis, and the court found her financial circumstances would have permitted such an arrangement.

The court also noted that finding counsel willing to take the case would likely cause delays that were unnecessary given the applicant's demonstrated competence.

The applicant sought to modify existing custody and access orders concerning the child Kyla Elizabeth Campbell.

The respondent father had a history of substance abuse and mental health issues.

The court granted supervised access for a four-month period with specific conditions including monthly blood tests, restrictions on alcohol and drug consumption, and provisions for unsupervised access upon successful completion of the supervised period.

The court also addressed child support arrears, ongoing support obligations, and various access arrangements including holidays and summer vacation.

The applicant retained primary custody.

The respondent brought a motion to change seeking to vary custody of the parties' daughter from the applicant to himself.

The proceedings were stalled by disputes over financial disclosure, particularly regarding the respondent's income as a self-employed real estate agent and his financial arrangement with his fiancée.

The court addressed multiple disclosure orders, finding technical compliance with procedural rules but noting the respondent's overall dilatoriness.

The court awarded costs to the applicant, stayed the respondent's custody motion pending completion of financial disclosure, and set conditions for any access requests.

The matter was adjourned for further case conference.

The respondent brought a motion seeking the return of her child, Tristan, to Vienna, Austria under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

The applicant had retained the child in Ontario after a three-month visit that was scheduled to end on March 7, 2012.

The court found that the child was habitually resident in Austria, that the applicant wrongfully retained the child, and that Austria was the proper jurisdiction for custody and access disputes.

The court ordered the return of the child to the respondent's care and custody and vacated previous orders restricting the child's removal from Ontario.

The respondent brought a summary judgment motion seeking custody of two of the parties' three children.

The applicant opposed the motion, arguing that the children's preferences should be explored at trial and that cross-examination was necessary.

The court granted the motion, finding that sufficient evidence regarding the children's best interests was already available through the Children's Lawyer's reports and observations.

The court awarded custody of Louis and Nikolas to the respondent, noting the children's consistent preferences and the applicant's failure to facilitate access to the respondent.