Stephen E. J. Paull

Two motions were heard by the respondents D.L. and T.S. in a child protection proceeding.

The first motion sought to vary the interim access order by increasing access to the children and permitting community visits.

The second motion sought an order prohibiting access by S.M.L.B. (the biological mother of one child) to J.L. The court found a material change in circumstances and granted a modest increase in access to D.L. and T.S., conditional on their participation in parenting programming.

The court rejected the motion to prohibit access by S.M.L.B., finding that supervised access was in the child's best interests and should continue.

A costs decision following a trial on the merits regarding a prohibition on changing children's surnames.

The respondent sought to change the children's surnames from "Schaafsma" to "Schaafsma Eaton" following a prior custody order.

The applicant brought an application seeking to prohibit the name change or, alternatively, to require a hyphenated surname.

The application was dismissed, permitting the respondent to proceed with the name change applications to the Registrar General.

The court awarded costs to the successful respondent in the amount of $11,085 inclusive.

This is a costs decision following a seven-day family law trial concerning access to children and child support.

The respondent sought costs of $26,266.74 following trial.

The court found divided success on the main issues: the respondent succeeded on section 7 expenses and her primary position on access subject to children's wishes, while the applicant succeeded on child support arrears and his primary claim for counselling to rebuild the parent-child relationship.

The court declined to award costs, finding that both parties behaved equally unreasonably on the central issue of access and that neither party had properly constituted settlement offers under the Family Law Rules.

Motion to change child support brought by the payor seeking to vary his child support obligation and adjust arrears.

The payor claimed a significant change in circumstances due to mental health issues arising from his employment at a correctional facility, which led to his involuntary hospitalization and subsequent departure from that employment.

The court found a change in circumstances for 2016 but determined the payor was intentionally underemployed from 2017 onward.

Income was imputed at $60,000 based on the payor's previous employment with the Canada Border Services Agency, which remained available to him.

Child support was varied accordingly, with reduced amounts during periods when children attended school away from home.

Section 7 expenses for post-secondary education were partially awarded, with a proportional split of 67% to the payor and 33% to the recipient.

The applicant sought an order prohibiting the respondent, the sole custodial parent, from changing the surnames of two children from Schaafsma to Schaafsma Eaton.

The respondent sought to add her surname to the children's existing surname.

The court applied the best interests of the child test and considered factors including the respondent's motivation, the children's existing use of the hyphenated name, the relationship between the children and the non-custodial parent, and the applicant's failure to meet financial support obligations.

The court found that the respondent had no improper motive, that the children already identified as Schaafsma Eaton at school, and that the name change would not harm the children or their relationship with their father.

The application was dismissed, permitting the name change to proceed, with a prohibition on any further name changes.

The applicant mother and respondent father both brought urgent motions for interim custody of their three-year-old daughter.

The court found urgency due to the toxic communication between the parents and the child's exposure to parental conflict.

The court strongly criticized both parents for surreptitiously recording each other and exposing the child to inappropriate behavior, particularly the father's abusive language and threats of self-harm.

Given the high conflict and the father's alcohol issues, the court ordered interim sole custody to the mother, with the father having alternate weekend and Wednesday evening access subject to strict non-communication and alcohol prohibition terms.

The father applied for sole custody, supervised access for the mother, and child support.

The mother sought custody or, alternatively, unsupervised access.

The child had been in the father's care since the Children's Aid Society intervened due to the mother's mental health struggles and inability to cope.

The court awarded sole custody to the father, finding that the parties' poor communication and the mother's instability made joint custody inappropriate.

However, the court granted the mother unsupervised access, concluding that the risks associated with her mental health had diminished and were outweighed by the child's need for a relationship with her mother and siblings.

The mother was also ordered to pay child support.

Trial decision resolving remaining issues of access and child support for three children following a prior consent order granting sole custody to the mother.

The court ordered the father to bear full responsibility for transportation to and from access, granted midweek Wednesday access from 4 PM to 7 PM with conditions regarding dinner and homework assistance, and ordered child support based on the father's ODSP income with arrears and ongoing monthly payments.

A voir dire on threshold necessity was held to determine whether out-of-court statements made by three children to third parties could be admitted as hearsay evidence in a child protection proceeding.

The applicant sought to tender the statements for the truth of their content.

The court heard expert evidence from a forensic and clinical psychologist regarding the children's ability to testify and the potential impact of doing so on their mental health.

The court found that reasonable necessity was established for the two younger children based on evidence of emotional harm and developmental limitations, but not for the older child who was capable of testifying with appropriate accommodations.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion to vary an interim supervision order by placing three children in temporary care and custody.

The respondent parents opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion seeking the immediate return of one child.

The court found that the children had experienced severe and chronic caloric deprivation resulting in failure to thrive, food-seeking behaviours, and significant emotional and behavioural difficulties.

Medical assessments by the SCAN Program at SickKids Hospital concluded that the parents' restrictive food control measures were causing harm.

The court found a material change in circumstances and determined that the children could not be adequately protected under a supervision order due to the parents' unwillingness to modify their controlling behaviour around food and their resistance to medical recommendations.

The motion was granted and the children were placed in the temporary care and custody of the Society.

A seven-day trial concerning access and child support disputes between separated parents of two children.

The applicant sought structured access on alternate weekends and weekday evenings, along with family counselling.

The respondent opposed access except at the children's discretion, citing the applicant's insensitive and rigid behaviour regarding his new partner.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer was appointed to represent the children's interests.

The court found both parents contributed to the estrangement through inappropriate conduct, though the applicant's rigid approach and failure to apologize as planned were particularly damaging.

The court also addressed retroactive child support and section 7 expense contributions.

A costs decision following a five-day trial in a custody and access proceeding.

The applicant sought to vary an existing order placing her son in the care of his paternal grandparents, seeking primary custody.

The court granted the applicant sole custody and primary care of the child, with access to the respondents.

The applicant sought costs of $12,000 inclusive, arguing the grandparents acted in bad faith.

The court found the applicant was entirely successful but declined to find bad faith, instead finding the grandparents' positions were unreasonable and reflected poor judgment.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $7,500 inclusive, considering the applicant's own unreasonable conduct in failing to attend court on multiple occasions and her shared responsibility for communication issues.

A motion to change custody and access arrangements for a child born in 2010.

The applicant mother sought sole custody with primary residence after having addressed historic substance abuse issues.

The respondents (paternal grandparents and father) opposed the motion, arguing that the current joint custody arrangement with the grandparents as primary caregivers should be maintained.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on the child's worsening behavioral and emotional difficulties, the lack of concerted efforts to address his needs, and the acrimony between caregivers.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother with structured access to the father and grandparents, finding that the hostility between the grandparents and mother was harmful to the child and that the mother had successfully addressed her historic concerns.

This is a status review application under the Child and Family Services Act concerning a child apprehended in November 2015 and placed in the care of her maternal great-grandmother.

The applicant Society initially sought a six-month supervision order with the child remaining in the great-grandmother's care.

The mother sought return of the child to her care, while the great-grandmother sought a custody order.

The court found the child continues to be in need of protection but determined that the child's best interests are served by a joint custody order with primary residence remaining with the great-grandmother, supported by liberal access to the mother.

The court emphasized the importance of continuity of care and attachment, particularly given the child's young age and the length of time spent in the great-grandmother's care.

The Children's Aid Society of Oxford County brought a motion seeking temporary care and custody of three children, alleging they were at serious risk of harm due to parental food restriction resulting in malnutrition.

The parents disputed the allegations, contending they were carefully monitoring food intake based on medical advice in response to the children's hyperphagia and food-seeking behaviours.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children were at risk of harm but determined that strict supervision terms with the children remaining in parental care, rather than removal, was the least intrusive order consistent with adequate protection.

The court ordered a SCAN assessment and required parental cooperation with medical recommendations and programming.

A custody and access dispute concerning a child born in April 2012 to parents who separated in June 2015.

The mother sought sole custody with alternate weekend access to the father, child and spousal support, supervised exchanges, and a restraining order.

The father sought sole custody and primary residence.

The court granted sole custody to the mother with liberal access to the father on a structured schedule.

The court found the father engaged in persistent harassment and malicious communications designed to undermine the mother's parenting role, while the mother had attempted to establish appropriate boundaries.

The court awarded child support and limited spousal support, and declined to grant a restraining order, instead imposing specific communication restrictions under the Children's Law Reform Act.

A trial decision concerning custody, access, and child support of two young children following separation.

The applicant sought joint custody with a 50/50 shared residential arrangement, while the respondent sought sole custody with structured access.

The court found incidents of domestic violence by the applicant, poor communication between the parties, and the applicant's intentional underemployment.

The court awarded sole custody to the respondent with structured overnight access to the applicant, and imputed income for child support purposes based on the applicant's capacity to earn.