Stephen E. J. Paull

The Children's Aid Society of Oxford County brought a summary judgment motion seeking a finding that the children were in need of protection and a final custody order under s.102(1) of the CYFSA in favour of the maternal grandmother, T.K., with access to the parents.

The father, J.P., opposed the custody order, seeking a further supervision order, while the mother, V.B., did not oppose the children remaining with T.K. The court found the children continued to be in need of protection due to the parents' substance use and instability, and granted the summary judgment, terminating the supervision order and placing the children in T.K.'s sole care and custody, with supervised parenting time for both parents.

The applicant brought an urgent motion seeking the return of the child, Maddaline, to her primary care as per a separation agreement, after the respondent unilaterally withheld the child following a temporary COVID-19 arrangement.

The respondent sought to maintain primary care based on the child's stated preference.

The court found urgency due to the respondent's self-help actions in changing the long-standing status quo.

While acknowledging the child's views, the court determined that the views were potentially influenced by the circumstances created by the respondent and lacked sufficient consistency over time.

The court ordered the child's immediate return to the applicant's primary care and school in her catchment area, upholding the prior status quo.

Claims for temporary decision-making and a police assistance clause were dismissed without prejudice.

The applicants, paternal grandparents, sought urgent interim orders for sole decision-making authority for one grandchild (M.M.) and shared decision-making for another (J.H.), or alternatively, contact with both children.

The court dismissed the decision-making claims, finding no urgency and that such orders would undermine the mother's (E.L.H.) ongoing cooperation with the Children's Aid Society (CAS) and parental autonomy.

However, the court granted the applicants interim contact with both children, finding urgency due to the disruption of a long-standing relationship and the likelihood of continued conflict without a court order.

Specific terms were imposed to mitigate adult conflict during exchanges.

This case involved urgent motions regarding the temporary relocation of children following the parents' recent separation.

The applicant father sought to prevent the children from moving from Woodstock, Ontario, while the respondent mother sought to dismiss his motion, which would allow her to relocate with the children to Manitoba.

The court found that the relocation was initially a joint family plan that was disrupted by the separation.

Considering the children's best interests, their young age, the mother's established plan in Manitoba (new home, job, school), and the father's unformulated parenting plan in Woodstock, the court permitted the temporary relocation to Manitoba.

The court also ordered interim parenting time for the father and access to information regarding the children's health, education, and welfare.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for various relief, including security for costs and interim expenses.

The applicant sought over $9,000 in costs, arguing success on financial disclosure, while the respondent sought $5,000, citing overall success and the applicant's unreasonable conduct.

The court found the respondent to be the more successful party on the motion.

While the applicant's initial request for disclosure was reasonable, continuing to pursue the motion after disclosure was provided and the disorganized presentation of her case led to wasted court time.

Despite the respondent's significant child support arrears, he provided timely disclosure.

Balancing the reasonable and unreasonable conduct of both parties, the court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent $1,000 in costs for wasted court appearances, with each party bearing the remainder of their own costs.

The applicant, Katarzyna Krzewina, brought a motion seeking security for costs and advance payment of interim expenses from the respondent, Chad Beaumont, in the context of his motion to change child support.

The court dismissed the motion for security for costs, finding that while the respondent's financial disclosure was entangled, his claim was not "so devoid of merit" as to be a nuisance or waste of time.

The court also dismissed the motion for advance payment of expenses, as the applicant failed to provide evidence on the necessity or reasonableness of the fees and disbursements, or that she was unable to fund the litigation without the order.

This motion concerned parenting time and decision-making authority for two children.

The applicant mother sought an interim order for sole decision-making and supervised parenting time for the respondent father, citing his substance abuse.

The respondent father denied the allegations and sought a return to previous unsupervised arrangements, later proposing a transitional supervised schedule.

The court, relying on independent evidence from the Voice of the Child Report and Children's Aid Society, found the father's alcohol use to be a significant concern impacting his parenting ability.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making authority and ordered supervised daytime parenting time for the father, along with alcohol prohibition and drug/alcohol screening.

The parties were encouraged to cooperatively expand parenting time as the father demonstrates abstinence, with a right for the father to seek court review after four months if no agreement is reached.

The case involves two motions regarding parenting time for the parties' child.

The respondent sought specified unsupervised parenting time, while the applicant proposed a lengthy transitional schedule due to concerns about the respondent's parenting experience and alleged substance abuse/criminal history.

The court reviewed conflicting affidavits and independent third-party evidence, finding that neither party fully substantiated their serious allegations against the other.

Applying the "best interests of the child" and "maximum contact" principles, the court dismissed the applicant's proposed lengthy transition, ordering an immediate and short transition to regular alternate weekend and weekly parenting time for the respondent, along with child support and benefits.

The applicant mother sought temporary spousal and child support.

The respondent father sought ongoing disclosure of the mother's income and job search efforts, and an order for the sharing of daycare costs.

The court imputed income to both parties, allowing a 50% deduction for rental expenses from gross rental income.

The mother established a prima facie case for spousal support based on compensatory and non-compensatory grounds due to income disparity and her role as primary caregiver.

The court ordered child support of $902 per month and spousal support of $600 per month, commencing January 1, 2021.

The father's cross-motion for disclosure and daycare sharing was consented to by the mother.

The respondent, D.C., brought two motions: one for contempt against the applicant, R.E., and another seeking an order for their children to engage in remote learning due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The contempt motion alleged R.E. failed to communicate on health/well-being issues and breached access terms.

The court dismissed both motions.

For contempt, the court found D.C. failed to prove wilful breach beyond a reasonable doubt, noting communication difficulties were mutual and R.E.'s access mistake was accidental and offered to be remedied.

For the remote learning motion, the court deferred to the government's assessment of school attendance risks, finding no specific evidence that in-person schooling was contrary to the children's best interests.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.