Stanley B. Sherr

A child protection society sought an order placing two children in the temporary care and custody of their mother subject to society supervision, with the father to have access at the society's discretion.

The father opposed the motion and sought the children be returned to both parents on a week-on, week-off basis.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children faced risk of sexual and emotional harm based on evidence of sexually inappropriate behaviour by both parents, the father's history of sexual violence convictions in Utah, allegations of domestic violence, and the father's lack of insight into protection concerns.

The court granted the society's motion, placing the children with the mother under supervision and ordering the father's access remain discretionary pending full disclosure of his criminal and therapeutic records.

The Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion seeking a finding that a child was in need of protection under clause 37(2)(b) of the Child and Family Services Act based on the mother's mental health issues, substance abuse, and domestic violence.

The father supported the motion while the mother opposed it.

The court granted the motion and found the child in need of protection, determining that the mother's combination of untreated mental health conditions, ongoing drug use during pregnancy and post-birth, and inability to protect herself from domestic violence created a real and likely risk of physical harm to the child.

The applicant sought costs following the dismissal of the respondent's motion to set aside or vacate an arbitrator's award, remove the arbitrator, declare the mediation/arbitration agreement void, stay the arbitration, and determine the child's school for the 2012/2013 school year.

The applicant claimed full indemnity costs of $4,788.38, while the respondent sought no costs order.

The court awarded costs to the successful applicant but reduced the amount to account for time spent on a prior motion step that was not compensated at that time.

A costs endorsement following a motion decision in a family law matter.

The respondent (father) sought full indemnity costs of $5,798.43 after being awarded temporary custody of the parties' child and obtaining a transfer of the case to Peel.

The applicant (mother) acted in person and did not make costs submissions.

The court found that while the father was the successful party, full indemnity costs were not warranted because neither party made an offer to settle and the mother's conduct, though unreasonable, did not rise to the level of bad faith.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $4,500, inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, payable within 60 days.

This is a costs decision following a one-day family law trial involving custody, access, and child support.

The respondent (mother) was successful in obtaining sole custody and child support.

The court found that the applicant (father) acted in bad faith by failing to comply with financial disclosure orders, providing inconsistent financial information, and stopping child support payments despite having the ability to pay.

The court awarded costs on a full indemnity basis for support issues and partial indemnity basis for parenting issues, fixing costs at $2,500 inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST.

The court also ordered that the father could not initiate further proceedings without proof of payment of the costs order.

The father brought a motion seeking to set aside an arbitration award made by Linda Chodos regarding the school placement of the parties' child for the 2012/2013 school year.

The father sought removal of the arbitrator, a declaration that the mediation/arbitration agreement was invalid, a stay of the arbitration, and a temporary parenting order.

The mother opposed the motion and sought a stay of the parenting proceeding.

The court found that the Ontario Court of Justice lacked jurisdiction to set aside the award, challenge the arbitrator, or remove the arbitrator.

The court determined that the arbitrator did not resign and that the mediation/arbitration agreement remained in force.

The court dismissed the father's motion and granted a stay of the parenting proceeding, allowing the arbitration process to continue.

The applicant mother sought temporary custody of the child with supervised access to the father, while the respondent father sought temporary custody with weekend access for the mother.

The father also brought a motion to transfer the case from Toronto to Peel.

The court found that the child had thrived in the father's primary care for several years and that the mother's allegations of abuse were not proven on a balance of probabilities.

The court granted temporary custody to the father, imposed strict conditions on the mother's access, and transferred the case to Peel where the child ordinarily resides.

A child protection trial under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act concerning whether a child was in need of protection due to risk of physical harm.

The Children's Aid Society apprehended the child following disclosures of physical and sexual harm by the father.

The society withdrew allegations of sexual harm at trial.

The court found, on a balance of probabilities, that the child had been subjected to inappropriate physical discipline by the father, including hitting with a belt on multiple body parts, and that the child had expressed consistent fear of the father.

The court found the threshold for protection was met under clause 37(2)(b) of the Act, finding the father's discipline was excessive and created a risk of physical harm.

The disposition phase was adjourned to a later date.

The father sought joint custody and 50% parenting time (or at minimum 40%) with his eight-year-old son.

The mother sought sole custody, day access for the father, retroactive child support from January 1, 2011 based on imputed income of $70,000, and designation of the child as a beneficiary on the father's health plans.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, maintained the existing access schedule with minor modifications, imputed income to the father for the period of intentional unemployment, and ordered retroactive child support from July 1, 2011.

The father's poor communication with the mother, inconsistent parenting, failure to comply with court orders, and lack of respect for the mother's role as primary caregiver were determinative factors against joint custody.

The mother sought child support from the father for their four children, requesting an imputed income of $40,000-$50,000 per annum based on the Ontario Child Support Guidelines, retroactive support from April 2011, and contribution to orthodontic expenses.

The father claimed an income of $16,000-$17,000 per annum and opposed retroactive support.

The court found the father's income documentation unreliable and imputed an income of $40,000 per annum based on the mother's credible evidence regarding the family's lifestyle during cohabitation and the father's intentional under-employment.

The court ordered ongoing child support, retroactive support from May 1, 2011, and contribution to orthodontic expenses for three of the four children, with arrears payments deferred for one year.

The applicant mother sought temporary custody of two children (ages 9 and 10), child support, and permission to relocate with the children to Florida to accept a nursing position.

The respondent father opposed the relocation and sought temporary custody or, alternatively, joint custody with weekend access.

The court granted temporary custody to the mother but dismissed her motion to relocate to Florida on a temporary basis, finding that genuine issues required a trial.

The court ordered the father to pay child support and granted him access on two out of every three weekends, with alternating weeks during summer.

A referral was made to the Office of the Children's Lawyer to obtain independent evidence regarding the children's views and preferences.

The applicant sought costs of $20,615.23 following a successful motion for temporary spousal support in the amount of $1,125 per month.

The respondent conceded the applicant was the successful party but proposed costs of $5,000.

The court found the respondent acted in bad faith by structuring business affairs to hide assets, failing to provide accurate financial disclosure, providing multiple conflicting income estimates, and attempting to deceive the court about his true income.

The court awarded costs on a full recovery basis for the second phase of the case and partial indemnity for the first phase, fixing total costs at $15,000 inclusive of HST, fees and disbursements, payable forthwith and enforceable as an incident of support.

A child protection application under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act concerning a child apprehended at birth.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society sought a finding that the child was in need of protection and a crown wardship order without access for adoption purposes.

The respondent parents opposed the application and sought either dismissal or, alternatively, a society wardship order followed by a supervision order.

The court found the child was in need of protection based on the parents' extensive prior child protection history, the mother's criminal convictions including fraud offences, the father's inconsistent commitment to parenting, and the lack of a viable plan for the child's care.

The court made a crown wardship order without access, finding that permanency planning through adoption was in the child's best interests.

A child protection case involving an amended protection application by the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking a finding that a child born in 2010 is in need of protection due to parental alcohol and drug abuse.

The parents contested the application and sought placement of the child with them subject to society supervision.

The court found the child in need of protection under subsections 37(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and clause 37(2)(g) of the Child and Family Services Act based on evidence of chronic alcohol abuse by both parents, their lack of insight into the severity of their substance use, and the resulting risks of physical and emotional harm to the child.

The court made the child a crown ward without access for the purpose of adoption, finding that despite positive aspects of the parents' plan and their love for the child, the unaddressed alcohol abuse and inadequate safety plan posed unacceptable risks to the child's welfare and permanency needs.

This is a ruling on the admissibility of child statements made to police officers in a child protection proceeding.

The respondent mother sought to exclude statements made by two children (ages 14 and 12) to police, arguing that the necessity test should be applied to state of mind exceptions and that many statements did not qualify under that exception.

The court ruled that while the principled exception of necessity and reliability applies to categorical hearsay exceptions, this was not a rare case warranting application of the necessity requirement to state of mind statements.

The court admitted certain statements that clearly reflected the children's emotional and mental state at the time they were made, while excluding statements that were too intertwined with causation or allegations of parental conduct.

The court also excluded a police interview transcript sought to be admitted for the truth of its contents, finding it insufficiently reliable without cross-examination given the high stakes of the proceeding.

A child protection agency sought to introduce expert psychiatric evidence regarding the impact of parental substance abuse on child parenting capacity.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine the admissibility of the expert evidence.

The respondent parents opposed the evidence on grounds of relevance, necessity, expert qualification, procedural non-compliance, and prejudicial effect.

The court excluded the evidence, finding it lacked relevance and necessity, the expert was not properly qualified in the specific area of substance abuse and parenting, and the probative value was substantially outweighed by prejudicial effect, particularly given inadequate notice and the risk of case delay contrary to the child's best interests.

A temporary care and custody motion under the Child and Family Services Act concerning a newborn child.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society sought to place the child in their care, while the mother sought placement with herself or alternatively with the maternal grandparents subject to supervision.

The court applied the two-part test requiring the society to establish reasonable grounds that the child would likely suffer harm if returned to the respondents and that the child could not be adequately protected by supervision terms.

While finding the first part satisfied regarding placement with the mother alone, the court determined that placement with the maternal grandparents, jointly with the mother and subject to strict supervision terms, was appropriate and the least disruptive alternative consistent with adequate child protection.

The respondent moved to set aside the registration of two child support orders from Polish courts.

The applicant did not appear.

The court initially set aside the orders due to lack of proper notice to the respondent.

Upon reconsideration as an original support application, the court found the respondent was the acknowledged father under Polish law and was entitled to child support.

The respondent's credibility was undermined by material omissions and contradictions in his evidence.

The court imputed income to the respondent and ordered retroactive child support from October 1, 2007, with arrears repayment provisions and specific termination conditions tied to confirmation of the child's school attendance.

The applicant sought temporary spousal support from the respondent following their separation after a seven-and-a-half-year cohabitation and less than one year of marriage.

The respondent had previously been ordered to pay $1,333 per month by Justice Zuker but failed to comply.

The court found the applicant entitled to spousal support on both compensatory and non-compensatory grounds.

The respondent's income was imputed at $100,000 per annum based on evidence of business underreporting and non-disclosure.

The applicant's income was assessed at $5,000 for 2011 and $10,000 annually thereafter.

The court awarded temporary spousal support of $1,125 per month, ordered repayment of arrears at $475 per month, imposed a non-depletion order, and required the respondent to deposit his passport with the court as security for compliance.

The respondent's pleadings were adjourned pending compliance with financial disclosure orders.

The applicant sought temporary child support for two children (ages 15 and 9) based on an imputed income of $25,000 per annum for the respondent, with support to commence November 1, 2011.

The respondent, who was on Ontario Works, argued he could not afford to pay and that no income should be imputed.

He also argued he should not pay support for the older child as she was not in school.

The court found the respondent was intentionally unemployed, rejected his arguments regarding the daughter's entitlement to support, and imputed income of $25,000 per annum.

The court ordered child support of $375 per month for November and December 2011, changing to $373 per month from January 1, 2012, with arrears to be paid at $75 per month starting June 1, 2012.