Sarah S. Cleghorn

The moving party sought decision-making and parenting orders in a high-conflict family law proceeding involving a child requiring ongoing services.

Applying the best-interests framework under the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court found both parents had engaged in self-help conduct, but made adverse reliability findings against the moving party and accepted the responding party’s evidence on historical primary residence.

The court held that a joint regime was unworkable and that sole decision-making should rest with the responding party to secure timely educational, medical, and therapeutic decisions.

A defined parenting schedule, holiday regime, information-sharing rights, and parenting-app communication terms were ordered to reduce conflict and promote stability.

This decision addresses a high-conflict parenting dispute involving Mischa Aaron Ettinger and Amilynn Bresseau concerning parenting time, communication, and child support issues for their child, Ozwald Edwin Mischa Ettinger.

The court found that both parents are capable and loving but unable to communicate effectively, with the father identified as the major contributor to ongoing conflict due to his inability to accept refusals for additional parenting time.

The judgment enforces a strict parenting schedule with minimal contact between parents, detailed provisions for exchanges, and clear guidelines for child support and Section 7 expenses.

The court also resolves a claim of overpayment by the father towards Section 7 expenses, ordering a net payment to the mother.

The applicant, maternal grandmother, sought sole decision-making responsibility, primary residence, and child support for the child, whose mother had abandoned her parenting role.

The respondent father sought primary residence and sole decision-making, proposing supervised parenting time for the grandmother.

The court granted the grandmother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, finding her plan provided stability and was in the child's best interests, particularly given the father's uninformed decisions regarding the child's medical and educational needs and his intentional under-employment.

The father's parenting time was restricted to daytime to ensure the child's medication compliance and avoid conflict.

Child support was imputed to the father at a full-time minimum wage.

This case concerns a motion to change a 2015 consent order regarding child support and parenting.

The primary issues were retroactive child support for 2020, 2021, and 2023, and the father's contribution to private school expenses for 2022-2023.

The court found the father failed to prove 40% parenting time for 2020, ordering retroactive support.

For 2021, the court included the father's significant income from stock option proceeds ($7.5M) for child support purposes, as mandated by Schedule III of the Ontario Child Support Guidelines.

However, applying Section 4 of the Guidelines for high-income earners, the court deemed the full Table amount inappropriate, finding it would constitute an impermissible wealth transfer to the mother.

Instead, the court ordered retroactive support based on doubling the child's budget for that year.

The father was also ordered to contribute to private school tuition, as his withdrawal of consent was deemed unreasonable.

The court also adjusted child support for 2022 and 2023 based on actual parenting time and income.

The Halton Children's Aid Society brought a contested motion seeking to place the child, S.A.R., in the temporary care and custody of the father, M.D.R., subject to supervision, and to supervise the mother's, M.A.R.'s, parenting time.

The Society alleged emotional harm and risk of emotional harm to the child due to the mother's persistent, unfounded allegations of sexual abuse against the father and her coaching of the child.

The court found that the Society met its onus, concluding that the child would likely suffer harm if returned to the mother's unsupervised care, citing the mother's repeated unverified allegations, coaching, mental health issues, and the child's therapist's concerns.

The motion was granted, placing the child with the father and ordering supervised access for the mother.

This trial decision addresses a respondent's claim for undue hardship regarding child support and an applicant's claim for imputed income due to intentional under-employment.

The court dismissed the undue hardship claim, finding the respondent's alleged reasons (care for disabled daughter, criminal record) did not prevent full-time employment and that his support for another child was not a "legal duty" under the Guidelines.

The court imputed income to the respondent based on a full-time minimum wage, finding he was intentionally under-employed, and ordered payment of child support arrears and ongoing support.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault causing bodily harm and assault causing bodily harm arising from an alleged incident on June 12, 2016.

The complainant alleged the defendant raped her and punched her multiple times in the face, causing bruising and injuries.

The defendant claimed the sexual activity was consensual and that the complainant's injuries resulted from her falling while intoxicated.

The complainant passed away before trial, requiring the Crown to rely on hearsay statements.

The court found the defendant's testimony inconsistent, improbable, and contradicted by independent evidence.

However, due to material inconsistencies in the complainant's own statements and the absence of cross-examination to clarify them, the court found reasonable doubt and acquitted the defendant on both counts.

This is a costs decision following an unsuccessful motion to change custody and access brought by the mother.

The father sought joint custody with primary residence in his home, while the mother sought sole custody with no access to the paternal uncle.

The court awarded the father sole custody with specified access to the mother.

The father was the successful party and sought costs in the amount of $12,944.79.

The court awarded costs in the reduced amount of $1,000.00, considering the mother's limited financial means, mental health difficulties, and the fact that she was self-represented, while also recognizing the need to discourage unnecessary litigation and encourage settlement.

The applicant, uncle of a minor child, brought a motion to change a prior custody order following the death of the child's biological father.

The respondent, the child's mother, sought sole custody with no specified access for the applicant.

The applicant sought joint custody with primary residence in his home.

The court found that the respondent's parenting abilities were significantly limited, evidenced by poor school attendance records, lack of structure and boundaries, and the child assuming a caregiver role for the mother.

The applicant demonstrated stable, loving parenting with appropriate supervision and structure.

The court granted sole custody to the applicant with specified access to the respondent, finding that joint custody was not feasible given the respondent's unwillingness to cooperate and her apparent cognitive limitations.

The Crown applied to introduce multiple hearsay statements made by the deceased complainant in the aftermath of alleged sexual and physical assaults.

The statements included a 911 call, statements to police officers, and a video-recorded statement made ten days after the alleged offences.

The defendant opposed admission on hearsay grounds.

The court applied the principled exception to the hearsay rule, analyzing both procedural and substantive reliability under the framework established in R. v. Khelawon and clarified in R. v. Bradshaw.

The court found that corroborative evidence, including DNA analysis, physical injuries, photographs, and police observations, established substantive reliability by ruling out alternative explanations for the statements.

All statements were admitted as admissible for the truth of their contents.

A paternal grandmother sought custody of two indigenous children and opposed the maternal grandmother's request to relocate with the children from Kenora to Cochrane, Ontario.

The maternal grandmother had been the primary caregiver since the children's births, while both parents struggled with severe addiction issues.

The court awarded custody to the maternal grandmother and granted permission for relocation, finding that stability with the primary caregiver and the maternal grandmother's genuine commitment to the children's welfare outweighed concerns about the paternal grandmother's age and fears of severed contact.

The court established a detailed access regime to preserve the paternal grandmother's relationship with the children.

The accused was convicted after trial of sexually assaulting a 17-year-old victim.

The assault occurred in the early morning hours when the victim was asleep and naked in her home on a rural property.

The accused, who was the victim's step-uncle, touched the victim's breast and vagina without consent.

The victim pushed him away and he left.

At sentencing, the Crown sought 6 to 9 months imprisonment plus probation and ancillary orders.

The defence sought a conditional sentence or alternatively 60 to 90 days intermittent custody.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 9 months followed by 24 months probation, finding that the assault fell within the mid-range of sexual assaults and involved significant aggravating factors including the victim's age, breach of trust, and substantial impact on the victim.

The applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis following a successful trial on custody and parenting arrangements.

The trial resulted in a joint shared custodial arrangement with child support payable in accordance with the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The respondent opposed the costs award, arguing that the applicant's offer to settle was unreasonable, that domestic violence issues forced litigation, and that a costs award would cause financial hardship.

The court found that the applicant's offer was reasonable, that the respondent acted unreasonably by refusing settlement, and that the respondent's domestic violence claims were unsupported by evidence.

The court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis from the date of the offer to settle.

A custody and access application concerning one child, Haedyn Alexa Karambetsos, born March 15, 2011.

The father sought joint custody with shared residence, while the mother sought sole custody with primary residence.

The mother alleged domestic violence and claimed inability to communicate with the father.

The court found both parents equally capable of parenting, rejected the domestic violence allegations as unsubstantiated, and determined the mother's refusal to communicate was a strategic choice rather than a consequence of abuse.

The court awarded joint custody with a week-about shared residence arrangement and minimal child support.

The accused was charged with sexual assault of a 17-year-old complainant on December 17, 2014.

The Crown alleged that the accused attended the complainant's residence in the early morning hours and sexually assaulted her by touching her breast and vagina without consent.

The accused denied the allegations entirely.

The court applied the R. v. W.(D.) framework for assessing credibility and found the accused's testimony unreliable due to material inconsistencies with his police statement and implausible explanations for DNA evidence.

The court accepted the complainant's evidence as credible and found that the accused had both motive and opportunity to commit the offence.

The court found the accused guilty of sexual assault.

The defendant, a police officer, was charged with sexual assault arising from an alleged incident in 1986 involving a woman he had investigated during a traffic stop.

The complainant alleged the defendant contacted her early the next morning, came to her home under the pretext of needing additional information, and forced her to perform fellatio.

The defendant testified the encounter was consensual and involved only kissing and touching.

The court found both witnesses had credibility concerns but ultimately determined that while the complainant's version was more probable, the Crown had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The charge was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with uttering a threat to cause bodily harm, possessing a knife for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, and breaching a probation order.

The Crown proceeded summarily on all three counts.

The case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence.

The defendant was found guilty of all three offences based on the totality of the evidence, including the specific nature of the threat, the defendant's proximity to the victim's residence, his possession of a knife shortly after the incident, and the unique identifying characteristics (name "Peter" with mother "Rebecca") that connected him to the perpetrator.

A custody and access dispute involving three children where the mother sought to retain sole custody with primary residence and the father sought custody or significant access.

The father had been absent from the children's lives for approximately three years following separation but sought to re-establish a relationship beginning in July 2015.

The court applied the best interests of the child analysis under the Children's Law Reform Act, considering factors including the children's strong bond with the mother as primary caregiver, the father's absence and subsequent re-engagement, concerns regarding alcohol consumption in the maternal grandparents' home, school attendance issues, and the inability of the parents to communicate effectively.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother with expanded access to the father.

This is a costs decision following a motion to change brought by the mother seeking to relocate the child from Winnipeg, Manitoba to Victoria, British Columbia.

The court dismissed the mother's motion, finding she failed to establish a material change in circumstances.

The mother's case rested primarily on an employment offer that the court found was not bona fide but rather a strategic move.

The father, as the successful party, sought costs from the date of his offer to settle.

The court awarded costs to the father on a full recovery basis from the date of the offer to settle, finding the mother acted unreasonably in pursuing litigation based on a non-genuine employment offer.

A status review hearing concerning two children in the care of a child and family services society.

The father consented to Crown Wardship with access rights.

The mother passed away during the proceedings.

The sole remaining issue was whether the children could be placed with maternal grandparents as required by statute.

The court found that while the grandparents had genuine love for the children, they lacked the necessary skills and training to meet the children's high needs resulting from severe developmental trauma.

The grandparents had also demonstrated concerning behaviors including coaching children on litigation matters, expressing negative views of the father to the children, and failing to cooperate with the society.

The court ordered Crown Wardship with access rights to the father, grandparents, and sibling contact arranged at the society's discretion.