Stephen E. J. Paull

This case involves a motion to change brought by the mother (C.M.R.) seeking to vary existing decision-making and parenting time orders for the parties' child, K.R. The mother initially sought sole decision-making and primary residence, while the father (R.S.C.) sought dismissal of the motion and child support.

By the end of the trial, the mother sought joint decision-making and shared parenting, and the father conceded a material change in circumstances.

The court found a material change due to the child's academic struggles and the mother's improved stability.

The court ordered joint decision-making with the father having the final say in disagreements, and maintained the child's primary residence with the father, with expanded parenting time for the mother.

Child support was ordered from the mother to the father, and section 7 expenses were to be shared equally.

The Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County brought a motion for temporary care and custody of a child, R., seeking placement with her aunt and uncle.

The father opposed, requesting the child's return to his care or expanded access, while the mother and aunt/uncle supported the Society's plan.

The court applied the two-part test under subsection 94(10) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, requiring the Society to demonstrate reasonable grounds of a real possibility of harm if the child were returned to parental care, and that an interim supervision order would be insufficient.

The court found a long history of neglect, including unhygienic living conditions, missed medical appointments, school absences, and concerns arising from the tragic death of another child in the parents' care.

The parents' responses were deemed insufficient to refute the established risks.

The court concluded that the child was at risk of harm and could not be adequately protected by a supervision order with either parent.

Consequently, the motion for temporary care and custody with the aunt and uncle was granted, with supervised access for the parents, and the Society was directed to monitor the child's hygiene and school attendance.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following a 9-day trial concerning contact between a child and the maternal family.

The applicants, the maternal aunt, uncle, and grandmother, sought full recovery of costs based on their success at trial and the respondents' unreasonable and alleged bad faith approach.

The respondents, the child's father and paternal grandparents, sought no costs, claiming divided success.

The court found the applicants were the clearly successful parties, having obtained an order for regular in-person and unsupervised contact that met or exceeded their settlement offer.

While the respondents' conduct in limiting contact was deemed unreasonable, the court did not find it constituted bad faith.

The court declined to award costs for prior steps in the litigation, citing the presumption against such awards unless specifically reserved.

Ultimately, the court awarded partial recovery of costs to the applicants.

The parties resolved parenting issues and proceeded to trial on child and spousal support.

Both parties sought to impute income to the other.

The applicant father operated a framing business at a significant loss, while the respondent mother was unemployed with childcare responsibilities.

The court found both parties intentionally under-employed.

Income was imputed to the father at $85,000 and to the mother at $25,000.

The court ordered set-off child support of $593 per month payable by the father.

The mother was awarded spousal support of $780 per month for five years, with the father receiving credit for $40,000 already paid.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking an order for the immediate return of the child's primary residence to Oxford County, alleging the respondent mother unilaterally relocated with the child to Scarborough without notice.

The mother argued she was fleeing family violence perpetrated by the father's mother and that her return to Scarborough was necessary due to her support network.

The court found the father did not consent to the move and acted promptly.

Despite the mother's failure to comply with notice provisions and her self-help actions, the court dismissed the father's motion, allowing the child to remain in Scarborough temporarily.

The decision was based on the child's best interests, particularly the mother's significant reliance on support services in Scarborough that would be jeopardized by a return to Oxford County.

Following a trial regarding parenting time where the respondent was successful in obtaining an order for supervised access, the respondent sought costs of $10,960.

The applicant argued against a costs order due to her limited income from ODSP and her role as the primary caregiver.

The court found the applicant had acted unreasonably during the litigation but acknowledged her financial circumstances and the potential impact on the child.

The court awarded the respondent partial indemnity costs of $4,800, payable at $200 per month.

The applicant and respondent each brought motions seeking sole decision-making and primary residence for their two children.

The primary issues were the children's COVID-19 vaccination and the eldest child's attendance at in-person school, with the respondent supporting both and the applicant opposing.

The court granted the respondent sole decision-making authority for the children's COVID-19 vaccination, finding it to be in their best interests based on public health guidance.

The court also ordered the children to attend in-person schooling starting September 2022, affirming the presumption that in-person learning is generally in a child's best interest.

The applicant retained primary care, and the court maintained the existing interim parenting schedule, while also requesting a Voice of the Child Report from the Office of the Children's Lawyer regarding parenting time and school jurisdiction.

This trial concerned the issue of parenting time for the father (respondent) with the parties' three-year-old daughter.

The mother (applicant) sought an order for no parenting time, alleging highly abusive and stalking behaviours by the father.

The father sought supervised access to develop a relationship with his daughter, alleging the mother had unjustly denied him access through fabrications.

The court conducted a detailed credibility assessment, finding the mother's evidence inconsistent and lacking corroboration, while the father's evidence was found to be clear, convincing, and cogent.

The court concluded that the mother had unreasonably withheld the father's parenting time and that it was in the child's best interests to commence supervised access.

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.

Father sought an urgent motion for interim sole custody of the parties' young daughter, alleging serious concerns regarding mother's ability to appropriately and safely parent.

Mother sought an interim joint custody order with a shared residential schedule.

The court found that while there were verified concerns regarding mother's home maintenance and supervision practices documented by Children's Aid Society, the most recent independent evidence from the child's physician and the transferee protection agency indicated stabilization since mother's relocation to reside with her father.

The court granted an interim joint custody order with a structured shared residential arrangement, requiring both parents to complete parenting programming and mother to engage in additional supports recommended by the protection agency.

A temporary care and custody motion under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 concerning three children.

The Children's Aid Society sought placement of the children with their father, citing protection concerns related to the mother's partner's history of sexual offences against children and the mother's failure to protect the children from this risk.

The mother opposed the motion and sought return of the children to her care.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children were at risk of harm and that they could not be adequately protected through supervision orders while in the mother's care.

The court ordered temporary placement with the father, subject to Society supervision, with supervised access to the mother.