Robyn Cecile Switzer

The father brought a motion seeking a temporary change in the primary residence of his two children (ages 8 and 10) from the mother to himself.

This was based on disclosures made by the children to their counsel regarding the mother's verbal abuse and excessive punishment.

The mother opposed the motion and sought the children's immediate return.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding that the disclosures, while concerning, did not amount to "compelling circumstances" to justify disturbing the six-year status quo.

The court ordered the children to resume primary residence with the mother, with protective terms regarding parental conduct and discipline.

The respondent brought a motion to expand access to the child and to stay a previous costs order.

The applicant opposed, arguing no urgency and that the respondent should not be heard due to unpaid costs.

The court dismissed the motion to stay costs, finding no urgency.

Regarding access, the court found urgency due to the child's developmental stage and pandemic-related delays, and ordered a phased expansion of Sunday access hours, but denied immediate overnight access.

The court also ordered the respondent to comply with public health regulations related to his employment as a nurse.

No costs were awarded for this motion.

This ruling on costs followed a motion regarding custody and access.

The applicant sought costs on both full and partial indemnity bases, while the respondent sought partial indemnity costs.

The court dismissed the applicant's claim for costs for the period from September 11 to October 5, 2018, and entirely dismissed the respondent's claim for costs.

The applicant was awarded partial indemnity costs for the period from October 25 to December 15, 2018, totaling $14,048.28, finding the respondent's conduct unreasonable during that later period.

The applicant mother sought the return of her child to her primary care after the child was placed with the respondent father following the mother's temporary psychiatric episodes.

The father opposed, seeking to maintain primary care.

The court, applying the best interests of the child principle under the Children’s Law Reform Act, found that the mother's episodes were temporary and appropriately addressed.

The court emphasized returning to the pre-existing status quo where the mother was the primary caregiver, as the urgent situation had passed and the mother could safely resume care.

The father's attempt to change custody was deemed opportunistic.

The court ordered the child's return to the mother's primary care with a clarified parenting schedule and ordered both parties to cooperate with Family Connexions.

This is a costs decision arising from two motions in a child protection application.

The Jewish Family and Child Service of Greater Toronto sought orders preventing children from attending court and receiving a psychological report.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer opposed both motions.

The court granted the agency's motions.

In the costs decision, the court addressed claims by the mother and the agency.

The mother's costs claims were dismissed.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer was ordered to pay costs to the agency in the amount of $3,850 due to their failure to meet agreed-upon filing deadlines, which caused additional work for the agency.

The applicant child protection agency brought two motions in a protection proceeding involving two children (ages 15 and 12) arising from parental conflict following the death of a sibling and the parents' separation.

The first motion sought an order preventing the children from attending court proceedings.

The second motion sought to prevent the children from receiving a clinical assessment report prepared by a family therapist.

The court granted both motions, finding that attendance at court and access to the report would cause emotional harm to the vulnerable children who were already deeply immersed in the parental conflict and litigation.