Stephen Parnell Brennan Eaton

An application to vary a Texas divorce decree recognized in Ontario under section 41 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The applicant father sought to impose a geographical restriction on the respondent mother's ability to relocate with the children outside the Region of Peel, Ontario, and sought child support.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on the mother's pattern of conduct including misrepresentation of her address, interference with parenting time, false allegations to police and child protective services, and coaching of children.

The court imposed a geographical restriction, ordered child support, and found the mother in breach of the order, awarding costs.

An appeal concerning the correct appellate jurisdiction and the discretionary transfer of an appeal.

The parties had a divorce order made in Texas that included parenting terms.

The Ontario Court of Justice found jurisdiction to address parenting issues.

The mother appealed to the Superior Court of Justice, which dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, finding that the appeal properly lay to the Court of Appeal for Ontario under section 73(2) of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The mother requested a transfer to the Court of Appeal late in oral submissions, which the Superior Court judge declined.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Superior Court judge's characterization of the order and her discretionary decision not to transfer.

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.

The applicant father sought leave to bring an urgent motion for parenting time with his three children, alleging the respondent mother had denied contact since a domestic incident.

The respondent mother opposed, asserting willingness for a week-about arrangement and disputing the father's claims.

The court found the applicant's initial letter misleading and the respondent's letter violated court protocols by exceeding page limits and including privileged information.

The court declined to find present urgency for a motion but scheduled a case conference to assist parties in resolving issues and to determine urgency as an element of case management.

Application under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction for the return of three children to Michigan.

The mother fled Michigan with the children and made a refugee claim in Canada.

The father sought return of the children, arguing wrongful removal.

The court found that under Michigan law, an unmarried father who had signed an Acknowledgement of Parentage did not have custody rights at the time of removal—only the mother held custody.

The court dismissed the application on this basis.

Alternatively, the court found that even if removal was wrongful, the mother established a grave risk of harm under Article 13(b) of the Convention due to documented domestic violence, sexual assault, and threats.

The court assumed jurisdiction under section 23 of the Children's Law Reform Act.