R. Shawyer

The applicant father sought an immediate custody order for his four-year-old son following the death of the mother.

The matter was heard as a triage decision during the COVID-19 suspension of regular court operations.

The court noted evidentiary deficiencies in the father's materials, including an unsworn application and an improperly completed s. 35.1 affidavit.

However, recognizing the father's need for authority to make medical and administrative decisions for the child, the court granted a temporary custody order and dispensed with service, adjourning the application for the filing of updated and proper evidence.

Following a three-week family law trial concerning custody and care of children, the court issued supplementary reasons to determine unresolved financial matters.

The court addressed retroactive child support arrears, s. 7 special expenses, allocation of assessment costs, responsibility for reunification therapy expenses, and management of the children’s RESP.

The court refused to consider new evidence or recalculations not introduced during trial and limited its determinations to evidence properly before the court.

The respondent was ordered to pay confirmed child support arrears and outstanding s. 7 expenses from the proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home, and to bear two-thirds of the reunification therapy costs.

The parties agreed that the applicant would continue managing the children’s RESP for future post-secondary education expenses.

In a high‑conflict family law proceeding involving allegations of parental alienation and significant breakdown in the parent‑child relationship, the court issued detailed parenting, therapeutic, and financial orders following trial.

The court granted custody of the children to the respondent father subject to supervision by the Children’s Aid Society and a structured reunification process designed to restore the children’s relationship with the applicant mother.

Extensive therapeutic intervention through a specialized centre was ordered for the parents and children, with reporting requirements and a scheduled review.

The court also made orders concerning access, child support, section 7 expenses, pension division, and property issues.

The decision emphasized reunification therapy, parental conduct requirements, and court oversight pending review.

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.