Stephen Pender

The respondent father brought a contempt motion against the applicant mother, alleging non-compliance with a final parenting order.

The mother argued that the motion should not proceed because the final order contained a mandatory dispute resolution clause requiring mediation/arbitration.

The court held that while it retains exclusive jurisdiction over contempt, contempt is a discretionary remedy of last resort.

The court declined to pass directly to a contempt finding and ordered the parties to proceed to mediation/arbitration as required by their final order, adjourning the contempt motion sine die.

The applicant child protection agency brought a Wagg motion seeking production of the complete Crown Brief regarding pending criminal charges against the respondent father for sexual offences against his child.

The Attorney General opposed production, arguing it could prejudice the ongoing criminal prosecution and taint witnesses.

The court granted the motion, finding that the agency met the test under Rule 19(11) of the Family Law Rules and that the rights and interests of the parties in the child protection proceeding outweighed any possible prejudice to the Attorney General in the criminal proceedings.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for the production of police and medical records regarding the respondent parents in a child protection proceeding.

The parents consented to the release of police records but opposed the release of their medical records, citing significant privacy interests related to their complex medical care as transgender individuals.

The court dismissed the motion for medical records, finding no sufficient nexus between the Society's concerns about emotional health and the predominantly endocrinological treatment the parents received.

The court held that the parents' privacy interests and the need to maintain their therapeutic relationships outweighed the probative value of the records at this stage.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that three children were in need of protection and for final custody orders placing them with their maternal and paternal aunts.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing there were genuine issues for trial regarding protection, disposition, and access.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the mother's severe and longstanding mental health issues, threats of violence, and inability to adequately supervise the children.

The court granted the summary judgment, found the children in need of protection, awarded custody to the aunts, and ordered supervised access for the mother.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion to enforce a final parenting order after the applicant mother unilaterally withheld the children to synchronize their schedule with her partner's children.

The court found that while the mother improperly resorted to self-help remedies, the situation did not meet the strict test for urgency, as there was no real crisis or risk of harm to the children.

The motion was dismissed, but the court ordered make-up parenting time for the father pending an upcoming case conference.

No costs were awarded to discourage the mother's use of self-help remedies.

The respondent father brought a motion for contempt against the applicant mother, alleging she breached two final orders regarding joint decision-making and alternating weekly parenting time.

The court dismissed the motion regarding the decision-making order, finding it was not clear and unequivocal.

Regarding the parenting time order, the court found the mother deliberately and wilfully breached the order by failing to take concrete steps to require the 14-year-old child to visit his father.

However, the court declined to exercise its discretion to find her in contempt, noting the father had alternate adequate remedies available and a contempt finding would not advance the child's best interests.

The applicant sought leave to bring an urgent, ex parte motion for interim orders regarding primary residence, sole decision-making, no parenting time for the respondent, and a restraining order.

The respondent was recently charged with breaching his terms of release related to serious incidents of violence against the applicant.

The court granted the restraining order and ordered no parenting time for the respondent to provide an additional layer of protection.

However, the court declined to make urgent orders regarding decision-making and primary residence, finding no immediate need as the child was already residing with the applicant.

A return date for the motion was set for early January 2022.

The applicant sought costs following a family law trial where she was the successful party, obtaining judgment for a property claim, child support arrears, spousal support, and parental decision-making.

The court considered the parties' offers to settle, noting the respondent made reasonable offers on financial issues that could have shortened the trial.

The court also considered the parties' behaviour, including the applicant's rigidity on parenting issues and the respondent's withholding of funds.

The applicant was awarded costs fixed at $28,000.00.

The parties separated after a short relationship marked by domestic violence.

The mother sought sole decision-making and restricted parenting time, while the father sought equal parenting time and joint decision-making.

The court granted the father expanded parenting time but declined to order equal time or joint decision-making due to the history of poor communication and the child's transition difficulties.

The mother was ordered to consult the father on major decisions.

The court also ordered the father to pay retroactive child support, a lump sum for spousal support, and a share of the proceeds from the sale of his home based on unjust enrichment.

The children's aid society sought extended society care for three young children and a custody order to a grandmother for the oldest child.

The parents opposed the orders, seeking the return of all four children to their care.

The court found the children were in need of protection due to the parents' history of substance abuse, domestic conflict, and inability to meet the children's developmental and medical needs.

The court concluded that returning the children to the parents was not a viable option and that the society's proposed plan was in the children's best interests.

The oldest child was placed in the custody of his grandmother, and the three younger children were placed in extended society care with limited parental access.

At the commencement of a child protection trial, the mother disclosed that her father and paternal grandmother identified with the Algonquin First Nation.

The court adjourned the trial to hear a motion on whether the children were 'First Nations children' under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

Finding uncontroverted evidence of the children's Algonquin heritage, the court determined they were First Nations children.

The court declared a mistrial to ensure the relevant band was served with notice and given the opportunity to participate, emphasizing the importance of reconciliation and First Nations' rights in child welfare proceedings.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order to place the child in the custody of the paternal grandparents pursuant to section 102 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking a trial to have the child returned to her care.

The court applied the summary judgment framework and found no genuine issue for trial, noting the mother's instability, ongoing substance abuse issues, and failure to present a viable plan of care.

The court determined it was in the child's best interests to remain in the stable care of the paternal grandparents and granted them custody, with access to the parents at the grandparents' discretion.

The children's aid society brought a motion for temporary care and custody of a one-year-old child, seeking placement with a kin caregiver.

The parents opposed the motion, seeking the child's return subject to a supervision order.

The court found credible and trustworthy evidence establishing reasonable grounds to believe the child was at risk of harm due to the father's domestic violence and alcohol abuse, and the mother's inability to protect the child.

The court concluded that a supervision order would not adequately protect the child given the parents' history of non-cooperation with the society and failure to engage in recommended services.

The child was ordered to be placed in the temporary care and custody of the kin caregiver, with specified access for the parents.

The parties, who separated in 2013, sought sole custody of their two children following a breakdown in their shared parenting arrangement.

The trial focused heavily on the parents' inability to communicate and their divergent approaches to their nine-year-old child's gender non-conformity.

The mother supported the child's social transition, while the father believed the gender non-conformity was manufactured by the mother.

The court found the parents' extreme lack of trust and conflict compromised their parenting abilities and precluded joint custody.

Sole decision-making and primary residence were awarded to the mother, with the father receiving alternating weekend access.

The court specifically ordered that decisions regarding the child's gender non-conformity must follow the recommendations of the CHEO Gender Diversity Clinic.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment regarding a finding of need of protection, a 6-month supervision placement to the mother, and an order that the father's access be supervised at the CAS's discretion.

All issues except the father's access were settled.

The court found that the CAS established a prima facie case for continued supervised access due to the father's problematic behaviour, missed visits, and failure to complete an assessment.

The father failed to raise a genuine issue for trial.

Summary judgment was granted, ordering the father's access to be supervised at the discretion of the CAS.

The Children's Aid Society brought a status review application seeking to terminate its supervision order over a young child.

Both parents agreed to the termination but disputed the subsequent custody and access arrangement under section 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The mother sought primary care or joint custody with primary residence, while the father sought sole or joint custody with primary residence.

The court considered the child's best interests, noting the parents' high conflict, the father's pending deportation proceedings, and the child's positive development under the existing shared parenting arrangement.

The court ordered joint legal custody with primary residence to the mother, maintaining the child's attendance at an Ontario school, and granted the mother a restraining order against the father.