Robert M.G. Shawyer

In a high‑conflict custody dispute following marital breakdown, the applicant mother alleged the respondent father had engaged in extensive parental alienation, while the father alleged longstanding abusive discipline by the mother.

Evidence included psychological assessments, extensive recorded conversations between the father and children, and testimony from therapists and medical professionals.

The court found the father had engaged in significant alienating conduct that damaged the children’s relationship with their mother, though the mother’s rigid parenting style also contributed to the family dysfunction.

Despite these findings, the court concluded an immediate transfer of custody would risk further harm, particularly to the older child who was severely enmeshed with the father and experiencing depression.

Custody remained temporarily with the father under supervision of the Children’s Aid Society, with structured reunification therapy and a scheduled judicial review.

The appellant father appealed a decision ordering ongoing and retroactive child support for an adult child with severe disabilities.

The appellate court upheld the finding that the child qualified for support under s. 31 of the Family Law Act because her participation in an adapted educational program constituted full-time education in light of her medical limitations.

The court also upheld the retroactive support award based on the father’s blameworthy conduct in failing to disclose income increases, consistent with the principles in DBS v. SRG.

However, the court held that the impact of the adult child’s Ontario Disability Support Program benefits on the quantum of support had not been properly analyzed and required further evidentiary consideration.

That issue was remitted to the Ontario Court of Justice for determination while the remainder of the appeal was dismissed.

An application under the Hague Convention for the return of a five-year-old child to Germany.

The applicant father sought an order that the respondent mother return their son to Germany after she wrongfully retained the child in Canada.

The respondent opposed the application, claiming that return would expose the child to grave risk of physical or psychological harm under Article 13(b) of the Convention.

The court found that the child was habitually resident in Germany, that the father held custody rights, and that the child was wrongfully retained.

The court rejected the respondent's Article 13(b) defences, finding insufficient evidence of domestic violence, that parenting competence was not relevant to a return order, and that the respondent's real motivation was economic and social rather than protective of the child.

The court ordered the child's return to Germany with undertakings from the father regarding interim support and the child's care pending German court proceedings.

In a family law appeal concerning child support for an adult child with significant health issues, the respondent sought to raise a constitutional challenge to s. 31 of the Family Law Act for the first time on appeal.

The challenge alleged unequal treatment between children of unmarried parents under the Family Law Act and children of married parents under the Divorce Act.

The court considered the test governing whether new constitutional issues may be raised on appeal, including whether there was a sufficient evidentiary record, whether the issue had been omitted for tactical reasons, and whether injustice would result from refusing to hear it.

The court found that the issue was foreseeable, that a sufficient factual foundation existed, and that the delay was largely attributable to representation issues.

The respondent was therefore permitted to raise the Charter issue and the appeal was directed to proceed with further case management.

The mother appealed an Ontario order enforcing a Georgia custody order that granted sole custody to the father.

Pending the appeal, the mother moved for third-party production of documents, and the father cross-moved for security for costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the mother's motion, finding the documents could have been requested earlier and would not meet the test for fresh evidence as they did not address the Georgia court's ability to protect the children.

The Court granted the father's motion for security for costs, finding the mother's appeal to be meritless and a waste of time, and ordered her to post $10,000.