Stephen Gillies

The applicant (mother) was found guilty of contempt of court for breaching paragraphs 14, 15, 25, and 26 of a September 29, 2015 court order.

Specifically, she failed to advise the respondent (father) of the time and location of a blood test for the child and arranged for the child to be seen by various doctors on six occasions without notifying the father in advance.

At the sentencing hearing, the mother apologized and stated she acted thoughtlessly and out of love for her son.

The court imposed a sentence focused on deterrence and behavioral change rather than financial penalties, given the mother's limited means and the fact that custody had already been transferred to the father as a consequence of her conduct.

This is a costs endorsement arising from a 15-day motion to change trial heard between April and August 2015.

The respondent sought full recovery of costs totalling $78,812.17, arguing he was successful on the motion and that the applicant acted unreasonably and in bad faith.

The applicant opposed the costs award, citing her limited financial means (Ontario Works recipient), the reasonableness of her conduct in making settlement offers, and the excessiveness of the respondent's counsel's time.

The court found the respondent was the successful party and presumptively entitled to costs.

After applying the factors under the Family Law Rules, the court awarded substantial costs of $68,552.00 (after deducting discretionary law clerk expenses), payable at a minimum of $500 per month, finding the applicant acted unreasonably throughout the litigation and significantly increased the respondent's costs through obstruction and refusal to settle.

This is a decision on a motion to change a custody and access order dated September 29, 2015, and a contempt motion brought by the respondent father against the applicant mother for alleged breaches of that order.

The applicant also brought a cross-motion seeking various relief including appointment of the Office of the Children's Lawyer and a mental health assessment of the father.

The child, Dean Webster, born October 26, 2011, has special needs including bilateral club feet and moderate to severe autism spectrum disorder with language delay.

The case involves a high-conflict dispute between the parties.

The court found that the mother had engaged in a relentless campaign to discredit the father and interfere with his relationship with the child, including making unfounded allegations of physical and sexual abuse.

The court found a material change in circumstances and determined that the best interests of the child required a temporary change in custody to the father, with the mother's access to be supervised.

The mother was found in contempt of certain provisions of the September 29, 2015 order.

This is a motion to change a final consent order regarding custody and access of a child with autism spectrum disorder and other medical conditions.

The applicant mother sought to maintain sole custody with supervised access for the respondent father.

The respondent father sought joint custody with expanded unsupervised access.

The court found a material change in circumstances and awarded joint custody with a parallel parenting arrangement, granting the father significant decision-making authority regarding medical and educational matters, and a phased increase in parenting time.

The court found the mother had engaged in a pattern of alienating behaviour and excluding the father from the child's life, contrary to the child's best interests.

The applicant father brought a motion for interim joint custody and equal parenting time of the parties' two-and-a-half-year-old daughter.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, seeking sole custody.

The court found that the high level of conflict between the parties, exacerbated by the paternal grandmother's interference and denigration of the mother, made joint custody or parallel parenting inappropriate.

The court granted sole custody to the mother, finding it in the child's best interests, and ordered a specified access schedule for the father.

The father brought a motion for interim joint custody and the mother brought a cross-motion to strike paragraphs from the father's affidavit that referred to an off-the-record settlement meeting.

The father argued that the best interests of the child trumped settlement privilege and that the mother negotiated in bad faith.

The court found no evidence of bad faith by the mother and emphasized the importance of protecting settlement privilege to encourage parties to resolve disputes without fear of prejudice.

The mother's cross-motion was granted, and the offending paragraphs were struck.