Sheilagh Marie O'Connell

The applicant mother sought an order granting the Ontario Court of Justice jurisdiction to decide matters of custody, access, and child support regarding their four-year-old son, and requested a stay of the access provisions of a German court order.

The respondent father sought a declaration that the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction and that the German court was the appropriate forum.

The court determined that Ontario had jurisdiction because the child was habitually resident in Ontario pursuant to a consent order from the German court.

The court recognized the German order as valid and enforceable in Ontario but granted the mother leave to amend her application to seek supersession of the order based on material change in circumstances.

The court heard competing motions regarding temporary access orders for a five-year-old child.

The father sought liberal and generous access including overnight weekend access, while the mother sought to eliminate overnight access and restrict visits to two separate eight-hour visits.

The court found that the mother had misled the court and the father about her residence, having returned to Ontario from Las Vegas months earlier without disclosure.

The court determined that overnight access was in the child's best interests and ordered a graduated schedule commencing with weekend access from Saturday noon to Sunday 4:00 p.m., progressing to alternating weekend access from Friday 4:00 p.m. to Sunday 6:00 p.m.

The court also granted the father information rights regarding the child's education, health, and welfare, and prohibited the mother from removing the child from Ontario without a court order.

The respondent sought costs of a motion to enforce compliance with a Final Order dated February 23, 2018.

The applicant, acting in person, did not respond to the respondent's costs submissions.

The court found that the respondent was successful in the motion and that the applicant behaved unreasonably by failing to comply with multiple provisions of the Final Order, including summer holiday provisions, communication requirements, parenting coordinator costs, school attendance, and disclosure obligations.

Although the applicant eventually cured most breaches after the motion was brought, the court determined that costs should be awarded on a partial recovery basis rather than full recovery, taking into account the applicant's limited financial circumstances and the absence of a formal settlement offer by the respondent.

This is a costs endorsement following a 15-day motion to change custody and access.

The father sought full indemnity costs of $213,653.63 after successfully obtaining reinstatement of unsupervised access to the child.

The mother opposed costs, arguing the father lacked standing due to prior breaches of cost orders and bankruptcy proceedings.

The court awarded the father $150,000 in costs, finding him the successful party but reducing the award due to his unreasonable conduct during the litigation, including identifying himself in media coverage, failing to exercise access for extended periods, breaching supervised access orders, and surreptitiously recording the child's therapist.

The respondent father brought a motion to change child support provisions, seeking to stay ongoing child support and section 7 expenses and to recalculate arrears based on his claimed inability to pay.

The father argued that Gladue principles should apply to the motion to change, citing his experiences as an Indigenous man and the impact of systemic inequalities on his ability to pay.

The court rejected the application of Gladue principles to child support motions but acknowledged the relevance of considering systemic factors affecting Indigenous persons.

The court found the father had not discharged his onus to establish a material change in circumstances warranting a reduction in the imputed income of $30,000 per annum.

However, the court granted relief regarding section 7 expenses due to lack of disclosure and adjusted arrears accordingly.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a summary judgment motion seeking a finding that two young children (ages two years and ten months) were in need of protection under section 74(2)(b) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The motion was based on evidence of inadequate feeding and failure to provide adequate care, resulting in the oldest child's weight dropping from the 10th percentile to the 3rd percentile while in parental care.

The court found that the parents, despite loving their children, had significant mental health issues and the father's aggressive personality interfered with their ability to accept medical guidance.

The court granted the protection finding on summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring trial.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a summary judgment motion seeking a finding that a nine-year-old child was in need of protection under sections 74(2)(b)(i) and 74(2)(h) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and seeking a disposition order placing the child in the permanent care and custody of her adult sister.

The respondent mother opposed the motion and sought dismissal.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding that there were genuine issues requiring a trial, particularly regarding the admissibility and weight of hearsay evidence and the sufficiency of evidence to establish serious emotional harm.

The court emphasized the importance of procedural safeguards in child protection cases, especially when the respondent is self-represented.

The applicant mother brought a motion to strike the respondent father's pleadings for non-compliance with court orders regarding psychiatric assessment, counselling, child support payments, and financial disclosure.

The father had a history of criminal convictions for violent offences, demonstrated volatile and abusive behaviour in court on multiple occasions, and failed to comply with orders to obtain treatment for anger management issues.

The court found this to be an exceptional case warranting the striking of pleadings, particularly given the vulnerability of the young children (ages 5 and 3) and evidence they had witnessed domestic violence.

The court struck the father's pleadings without prejudice, allowing reinstatement upon compliance with specific conditions including meaningful psychological assessment, counselling, and supervised access through qualified supervisors.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a child support order from 2012 that imputed his income at $104,000 annually, requiring him to pay $911 per month.

The applicant mother moved to strike the father's pleadings due to his failure to comply with financial disclosure orders.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding that while the father's disclosure was inadequate, he had made some effort to comply and there was merit to his motion to change.

The court found that the original imputation of income was likely incorrect based on the calculation method used and that changed circumstances warranted a review of the order.

The matter was scheduled for a settlement conference and focused hearing.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a final child support order made in October 2015, seeking to reduce ongoing child support to zero and to rescind accumulated arrears of approximately $91,000.

The applicant mother sought to dismiss the motion and strike the father's pleadings due to his failure to comply with financial disclosure orders.

The court found that while the father had established a change in circumstances following an Achilles tendon injury in July 2015, he had failed to provide adequate financial disclosure to support his claims.

The court declined to strike the pleadings due to the high threshold in family law cases involving access issues, but proceeded on the documentary record.

The court found the father capable of earning minimum wage income from his painting business and imputed income accordingly.

The court fixed total arrears at $48,862 and ordered ongoing child support of $604 per month for three biological children, with arrears to be paid at $250 per month.

The respondent father sought a summary decision on whether the Ontario Court of Justice had jurisdiction to make a new child support order or retroactively vary child support provisions of a Colombian divorce order dated November 7, 2006.

The father argued that since Colombia is not a reciprocating jurisdiction under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, the mother had no recourse in Ontario and must seek relief in Colombia.

The mother argued that Ontario had jurisdiction based on real and substantial connection and forum of necessity, as she and the child had been permanently resident in Ontario since 2014, and the father had attorned to Ontario's jurisdiction regarding custody and access.

The court found that Ontario had jurisdiction to determine child support, distinguishing the case from precedents involving forum shopping and applying the Muscutt jurisdictional factors.

The applicant mother sought to terminate the respondent father's mid-week access to their child pending trial, based on recommendations in an Office of the Children's Lawyer report.

The report recommended terminating mid-week access based on the child's teacher's observations of behavioral difficulties following access with the father.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the factual basis for the recommendation was questionable and untested, contradicted by other evidence, and would represent a significant change to a status quo that had been in place for over eighteen months without incident.

The court emphasized the importance of parental communication and cooperation for the child's best interests.

This is a costs endorsement arising from a motion for temporary access to a child during November and Christmas 2017.

The applicant father sought access to the child while a trial on custody and access was ongoing before another judge.

The respondent mother opposed the motion.

The court granted the applicant substantially all of the relief sought, permitting access during the requested periods with specified conditions.

The applicant subsequently sought full recovery of costs in the amount of $6,724.06.

The court reduced the costs award to $3,000.00 inclusive of all fees, disbursements, and HST, citing the failure of either party to serve an offer to settle and other relevant factors under the Family Law Rules.

This is a motion to change a 2009 custody and access order in a highly contentious family law dispute involving a child with alleged food allergies.

The mother sought to impose indefinite supervised access on the father, claiming he failed to comply with medical directives regarding the child's purported life-threatening allergy to tartrazine (yellow food dye).

The father sought reinstatement of the original parenting plan or, alternatively, sole custody.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on the child's medical condition and the father's two lengthy absences from the child's life (totalling 16 months).

However, the court rejected the mother's request for indefinite supervised access, finding no credible evidence that the child faced physical risk in the father's unsupervised care.

The court reinstated substantially the original parenting plan with modifications, granting the father regular unsupervised access including overnight visits and holidays.

The court found the mother had undermined the father-child relationship through hyper-vigilance and over-protectiveness, while the father demonstrated poor judgment through his absences and oppositional conduct.

The child's best interests were served by maintaining the mother's custody while restoring meaningful access to the father.

The applicant mother sought retroactive child support from June 24, 2010 to March 1, 2012, enforcement of the parties' separation agreement requiring the respondent father to pay one-half of the child's post-secondary education expenses (undergraduate degree at University of Toronto and graduate degree at University of London), and alternatively, variation of a Final Consent Order dated March 31, 2005.

The mother also brought a motion for contempt against the father for failure to comply with financial disclosure orders.

The court found that the Final Consent Order, which purported to eliminate all ongoing child support when the child was 14 years old, was fundamentally unreasonable and set it aside.

The court determined that the child qualified for support for her graduate degree and ordered the father to contribute $25,000 towards post-secondary education expenses.

The claim for retroactive monthly child support was dismissed.

The contempt motion was dismissed as the court was not satisfied the breach was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The applicant father sought an order that the children remain at Lambton Park Community School, approximately a fifteen-minute walk from his home.

The respondent mother sought an order that the children be registered at Riverside Public School, approximately a five to ten-minute walk from her home.

The children's primary residence was with the mother during the week and with the father on weekends.

The court considered the children's best interests under section 24(2) of the Children's Law Reform Act, including the children's views and preferences as reported by the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The court ordered that both children be registered at Riverside Public School, finding that the three-hour daily commute from the mother's home was excessive, that Jack had experienced ongoing bullying at Lambton Park, and that both children preferred to remain together at the same school.

The respondent father sought to change the access provisions of a 2009 custody and access order, requesting either a 45/55 shared parenting schedule (as recommended by the Office of the Children's Lawyer in 2013) or a 50/50 equal time-sharing arrangement.

The applicant mother opposed the motion and sought to maintain the status quo with discretionary overnight access contingent on the father providing proof of stable accommodation.

The court found a material change in circumstances since 2009, including the child's aging, ongoing parental conflict, the child's special needs (ADHD diagnosis), and changes in the father's living situation.

However, the court determined that a shared parenting arrangement was not feasible due to the father's unstable housing and employment history, the high level of parental conflict, and the lack of cooperation necessary for shared custody to function effectively.

The court reinstated overnight alternating weekend access conditioned on the father maintaining stable living accommodation with his partner, Ms. Dubin, while maintaining the mother's sole custody.

A motion to change a 2014 final custody and access order concerning a child with ADHD, anxiety disorder, and learning disability.

Both parents sought modifications: the father sought increased parenting time from four consecutive days monthly to ten consecutive days monthly plus extended summer access; the mother sought sole custody and reduction of the father's access to two overnights monthly.

The court found material changes in circumstances warranting a fresh inquiry into the child's best interests.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother while significantly increasing the father's access to alternating weekends and midweek visits while residing in Toronto, with strict conditions prohibiting firearm exposure and excessive physical exercise.

The court found the mother had undermined the father's relationship with the child through exaggerated allegations and unsubstantiated child protection complaints, while the father had exercised poor judgment in some parenting decisions but was not abusive.

The respondent mother sought a costs award of $18,788.88 following settlement of a family law application.

The applicant father had commenced proceedings seeking to change the parenting plan from the existing arrangement (approximately 39% of the time with the children) to a 50-50 "week about" schedule, and to reduce child support accordingly.

The mother opposed the application and sought sole custody.

The parties settled on January 19, 2017, with the mother obtaining sole custody and the father's parenting time being reduced to every other weekend and one Wednesday evening per week.

The court awarded costs to the mother in the amount of $6,000.00, finding that while the mother was entirely successful, the father had acted reasonably in accepting the Office of the Children's Lawyer's recommendations and settling the matter relatively quickly thereafter.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion under section 74 of the Child and Family Services Act seeking production of a psychiatric report and records prepared by Dr. Mary Lilley regarding the young person X. The respondent parents supported the motion, but X. opposed the release of their private psychiatric records.

The court considered competing interests between the society's need for relevant information to inform its service plan and X.'s privacy interests and therapeutic relationship with the psychiatrist.

The court determined that before ruling on the motion, it would conduct a judicial review of the report in a sealed envelope to determine whether the society had met its onus of establishing relevance and whether the report should be released.