Samir C. Patel

This decision resolves a high-conflict family law dispute involving parenting, child support, equalization, and restraining orders.

The court found that the children’s best interests are served by residing primarily with the father, who is granted sole decision-making responsibility.

The mother is ordered to pay child support and a significant equalization payment, and is restrained from communicating with the father or his employer except as necessary for parenting.

The court declined to order police enforcement or spousal support, and provided detailed reasons for each aspect of the relief granted.

This case involved multiple motions concerning parenting arrangements and decision-making for four children following the death of their mother/sister.

The applicant, the maternal grandmother, sought sole decision-making for one child and increased parenting time/reunification therapy for two others.

The respondents, including the great-grandmother and an extended family member, sought various parenting and decision-making orders.

The court ordered shared decision-making and a week-on-week-off parenting schedule for the youngest child between the grandmother and great-grandmother.

Sole decision-making and primary residence were granted to the extended family member for the two older children, respecting their views.

The court dismissed the request for reunification therapy, finding it not beneficial given the children's wishes and family dysfunction.

The Children's Aid Society's handling of the case was also criticized for failing to adequately address the children's emotional needs and views.

This trial concerned decision-making responsibility and parenting time for the parties' 10-year-old daughter.

The Applicant mother sought sole decision-making and supervised parenting time for the Respondent father, transitioning to unsupervised upon completion of programs.

The father sought joint decision-making and immediate unsupervised parenting time, plus reimbursement for supervised access costs.

The court found the father engaged in extensive family violence against both the mother (abusive communication, controlling behavior) and the child (corporal punishment), and demonstrated a lack of credibility and accountability.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and ordered unsupervised parenting time for the father on alternating weekends, contingent on his cessation of corporal punishment.

The father's claim for reimbursement was dismissed, and the court determined further programs for the father were unlikely to be effective given his lack of insight.

The respondent father brought a contempt motion against the applicant mother for alleged breaches of a final order concerning shared parenting, non-disparagement, and polite communication.

The mother admitted to not facilitating the parenting schedule, citing the children's resistance due to the father's behaviour, and unilaterally ceased communication.

The court found the mother intentionally breached the parenting and communication terms of the order.

However, exercising its discretion, the court declined to make a formal finding of contempt, noting that contempt is a remedy of last resort.

Instead, given that a temporary consent order for a gradual increase in the father's parenting time had already been made, the court converted the contempt motion into an enforcement motion, emphasizing the mother's obligation to comply with court orders and apply parental authority.

This protection application concerned three children whose mother was murdered.

The Children's Aid Society sought a finding that the children were in need of protection and final custody to their maternal aunt, with whom they had resided since their mother's death.

The respondent father (MH) of two of the children sought custody of his daughters.

The court found the children in need of protection due to physical harm (dental neglect), risk of physical harm (neglect of immunizations, exposure to domestic violence), risk of emotional harm (domestic violence, housing instability, risk of removal from long-term caregiver), and inadequate provision for care after the mother's death.

The court dismissed the father's bid for custody, finding his plan not viable and his credibility lacking, and granted final custody of all three children to the maternal aunt, emphasizing the children's best interests, continuity of care, and the aunt's demonstrated ability to meet their needs.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto (CAS) sought leave to withdraw its protection application concerning three children (G., Y., L.) after two years of litigation.

The father (M.H.) opposed the withdrawal, citing ongoing protection concerns related to the maternal aunt's (L.M.) care and alleged parental alienation.

The maternal aunt supported the withdrawal, having initiated a private Children's Law Reform Act (CLRA) application for sole decision-making responsibility.

The court dismissed the CAS's motion to withdraw, finding serious ongoing protection concerns, potential prejudice to the father and children in a private domestic proceeding, and that withdrawal would usurp the court's function to determine if the children are in need of protection.

This is a child protection application concerning three children whose mother was fatally shot.

The maternal aunt assumed care of the children and seeks to become their permanent guardian.

The biological father of two of the children, who has a history of domestic violence with the deceased mother and was charged with uttering death threats shortly before her death, seeks expanded access and eventual custody of the two younger children.

The Children's Aid Society initially supported the aunt's care but later began exploring expanded unsupervised access for the father.

The court adjourned proceedings to allow the aunt to obtain state-funded counsel, finding she has a constitutional right to representation.

This is a summary judgment motion under the Child and Family Services Act where the Children's Aid Society sought a permanent custody order (section 57.1) placing a child with the paternal grandmother.

The biological mother opposed the motion and sought return of the child to her care, alternatively requesting a supervision order or access arrangements.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding the child's continued need for protection and determined that placement with the grandmother was in the child's best interests.

The mother's evidence of progress in mental health treatment was insufficient to overcome concerns about her lack of engagement with the child over one year, her refusal to permit home visits, and her ongoing behavioral issues during access visits.

A child protection disposition hearing following a finding that three children were in need of protection due to emotional harm resulting from parental neglect and exposure to domestic violence and substance abuse.

The mother had exposed the children to crack cocaine use, domestic violence with an abusive boyfriend, serious school absences, and neglect of medical and dental needs.

The father sought custody.

The court granted final custody to the father under section 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, finding that the children were thriving in his care and that the mother lacked insight into the harm caused and continued to pose risks through poor judgment and manipulation during access visits.

The court ordered supervised access initially, transitioning to unsupervised weekend and holiday access.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to have a child made a Crown ward without access for the purpose of adoption.

The mother contested the motion and sought the return of the child to her care or alternatively placement with the maternal aunt under Society supervision.

The court found that the mother had failed to follow through with recommended services, had a history of substance abuse, and lacked the capacity to parent a child with global developmental delays.

The parenting capacity assessment indicated that the mother's ability to parent was contingent on compliance with recommendations and recovery from psychological difficulties.

The court granted summary judgment making the child a Crown ward with supervised monthly access to the mother.