Raymond E. Sharpe

The respondent brought a motion to strike the applicant's motion to change and to prohibit further motions without leave of court and security for costs.

The applicant sought dismissal of the respondent's motion and leave to proceed with her motion to change.

The court found that the applicant had a history of non-compliance with court orders requiring leave before bringing motions to change, had engaged in abuse of process through relitigation of settled issues, and lacked credibility.

The court struck the applicant's motion to change, dismissed her request for leave, and dismissed the respondent's request for security for costs, finding that existing leave requirements were sufficient safeguards.

The applicant mother brought a motion to enforce an unsigned offer to settle in a family law proceeding.

The respondent father, who suffers from cognitive and visual impairments due to multiple motor vehicle accidents, argued he never instructed his former counsel to accept the offer.

The court found that no final settlement was reached because the father's counsel explicitly indicated he needed to review the documents with his client in person before signing.

Furthermore, the court held that even if an agreement had been reached, it would not enforce it due to the father's cognitive disability and the mother's failure to provide complete financial disclosure at the time of the alleged settlement.

The mother's motion was dismissed.

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.

The Children's Aid Society of Peel brought a summary judgment motion seeking protection findings for four children in the care of C.D. The motion addressed whether the children were in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act.

The court found that K.B. suffered severe physical injuries while in C.D.'s exclusive care, including fractures, subdural hematomas, and genital injuries.

The court made protection findings under multiple subsections of s. 37(2) of the Act for all four children.

The other three children (M.M., A.B., and AA.B.) were found to be at risk of physical harm based on C.D.'s overwhelmed state and the serious injuries inflicted on K.B. The matter was adjourned for a disposition hearing.

This is a status review application under the Child and Family Services Act concerning four young children who were apprehended due to severe neglect and developmental delays.

The Children's Aid Society sought an order for crown wardship without access.

The father sought return of the children to his care, either pursuant to a section 57.1 order or with supervision.

The mother sought access.

The court found that the children continued to be in need of protection due to risks of physical and emotional harm and developmental delays.

The court determined that the father lacked the insight, judgment, and capacity to meet the complex medical and developmental needs of the children, despite community supports.

The court ordered that all four children be made crown wards for the purpose of adoption with no access to either parent.

A motion by the father for unsupervised access to his two young sons on a gradually increasing schedule was opposed by the Children's Aid Society, which sought to reduce his current supervised bi-weekly access to once every two months.

The court considered the father's significant mental health history, including schizophrenia and substance abuse issues, his recent stabilization following an absolute discharge from the Ontario Review Board in December 2014, and the quality of his interactions with the children during supervised visits.

The court found that while maintaining contact with the father and paternal family was in the children's best interests, the father had not demonstrated the ability to meet the children's needs without supervision and had not shown meaningful improvement in parenting skills over 22 months of supervised access.

The Children's Aid Society of the Region of Peel brought a motion seeking temporary care and custody orders for three children under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

The mother consented to placement of all three children with the maternal grandparents.

The father of two of the children sought placement in his own care.

The court determined that both the maternal grandparents and the father qualified as "persons in charge" under the Act.

However, the court found that placement with the father was in the children's best interests, as it would minimize ongoing parental conflict and prioritize placement with a parent over grandparents.

The mother had breached an existing domestic court order by placing the children with the maternal grandparents without consulting the father.

This is a status review application under the Child and Family Services Act concerning two children found to be in need of protection due to domestic violence between their parents and lack of supports for the mother.

The Children's Aid Society sought an order of Crown wardship with a plan for adoption.

The mother sought custody under supervision, while the father sought placement with his grandparents.

The court rejected both the Society's plan for Crown wardship and the mother's plan for return to her care, finding instead that placement with the paternal grandparents under Society supervision best served the children's interests while maintaining family connections and protecting them from the risks posed by their parents' conflicted relationship.

Motion to change custody and support arrangements for a six-year-old child.

The applicant sought to reduce the respondent's weeknight access from weekly overnight to alternate Wednesdays until 8:00 p.m., while the respondent sought to reinstate weekly overnight Wednesday access.

The court granted weekly overnight Wednesday access to the respondent, finding it in the child's best interests.

The court also addressed transportation responsibilities, exchange locations, child support base amount, and section 7 expense contributions.

The respondent's income was imputed at $109,000 annually for child support purposes, resulting in increased monthly support.

Section 7 expenses for after-school care were ordered to be shared equally between the parties.

This is a child protection status review proceeding under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

Two motions were heard: one by the maternal grandmother seeking to be added as a party to present an alternative placement plan for the children, and one by the father seeking to add the paternal grandparents as parties.

The children had been in the father's care subject to supervision orders since May 2011.

The court dismissed both motions but granted the paternal grandparents limited participation rights under subsection 39(3) of the Act as essential caregivers who had cared for the children continuously for the preceding six months.

The applicant father brought a motion for temporary sole custody of the parties' four-year-old son, with the respondent mother bringing a cross-motion for the same relief.

The parties separated in February 2011 after marrying in May 2008.

Following separation, the respondent mother made allegations of abuse against the applicant, which were investigated by the Children's Aid Society and found to be unsubstantiated.

Criminal charges were subsequently withdrawn when it became apparent the child had been coached.

The court found the respondent mother had engaged in a campaign to discredit the applicant and subjected the child to unnecessary intervention.

The applicant father was found to offer a more stable environment and balanced approach.

The court granted temporary custody to the applicant father with liberal and generous access to the respondent mother.