Susan Sullivan

This Ontario Court of Justice decision addresses complex parenting, child support, and spousal support issues involving parties N.G. (Applicant) and A.M.A. (Respondent).

The court granted sole decision-making responsibility to the Applicant, denied parenting time to the Respondent due to his lack of engagement and history of family violence, and imputed income to the Respondent for child support purposes based on his educational background and employment capacity.

Retroactive child and spousal support were ordered, with payment plans established.

The court emphasized the paramountcy of the children's best interests, particularly in the context of family violence and the Respondent's controlling behavior.

The decision also highlights the court's approach to self-represented litigants and the application of the Children’s Law Reform Act and Family Law Act.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto sought a temporary order for the placement of a 16-month-old child, W, in the care of his maternal grandmother (C.B.) with Society supervision, and supervised access for the parents (K.B. and O.A.).

K.B. sought W's return to her care or unsupervised parenting time with C.B. O.A. sought expanded supervised access and virtual/phone access.

The court found that the Society met its onus, establishing a real possibility of harm if W returned to K.B.'s care due to serious criminal charges against both parents (including child pornography) and K.B.'s unhealthy relationship with O.A. The court dismissed K.B.'s request for W's return and unsupervised access, and O.A.'s request for virtual access, ordering W to remain in C.B.'s temporary care with Society supervision and fully supervised in-person access for the parents.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a summary judgment motion seeking a finding that the child K. was in need of protection and an order for extended society care with no access for the mother, K.C. K.C. opposed, seeking dismissal or a supervision order and continued access.

The court found K. to be in need of protection and ordered extended society care, citing K.C.'s long-standing behavioral and thought process challenges, and her inability to provide a safe, stable, and predictable environment.

However, the court found insufficient evidence to summarily determine the access issue post-extended society care, ordering a mini-trial on that specific matter.

The mother (B.J.) brought a motion seeking an order for family reunification/reintegration therapy involving herself, the father (D.M.), and their child (S.M.).

The father and the Office of the Children's Lawyer opposed the motion, citing the child's strong and consistent views against contact with the mother.

The court found that the child's views were significantly influenced by the father, who displayed a lack of willingness to support the child's relationship with the mother and a disregard for judicial process.

Despite the child's stated reluctance, the court determined that reunification therapy was in the child's best interests, given the profound negative influence exerted by the father and the potential long-term negative effects on the child's emotional and psychological well-being.

The motion was granted, ordering all parties to attend and participate in the therapy, with costs to be shared equally.

The Children's Aid Society sought to vary a temporary access order to suspend in-person visits between a 16-month-old child and his parents during the COVID-19 pandemic, proposing to replace them with video access only.

The parents opposed the motion, arguing that the Society was applying a blanket policy inappropriate to their specific circumstances.

The court found that while COVID-19 constituted a significant change in circumstances, the Society failed to establish that complete suspension of in-person access was proportionate.

The court granted the motion in part, permitting in-person access to continue under strict COVID-19 safety protocols, while suspending the weekday visits at the Society's offices and replacing them with video access.

A mother brought an urgent motion during the COVID-19 pandemic seeking to suspend the father's in-person access with the children due to health and safety concerns.

The mother reported that she and the children exhibited COVID-19 symptoms, and the father's parents had recently returned from international travel.

The court found that most of the mother's requests were not urgent but determined that temporary suspension of in-person access was warranted based on the children's health circumstances and the father's failure to provide information regarding COVID-19 safety measures.

The court ordered that in-person access be suspended temporarily and replaced with virtual contact via Skype, FaceTime, and telephone, pending further determination of urgency.

This is a child protection trial involving two adolescent children who were found to be in need of protection due to ongoing domestic violence, physical abuse, emotional abuse, and controlling behaviour by the father towards both the mother and children.

The court found that the children suffered serious emotional harm including anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder.

The mother was granted sole custody of the children.

The father was denied access to the children, and a restraining order was imposed prohibiting him from contacting or coming within 500 metres of the mother and children.

The court rejected the father's request for joint custody and reunification efforts, finding that the children's clearly expressed wishes not to have contact with their father should be respected, and that the father had demonstrated no insight into the harm he caused and remained unwilling to engage appropriately with professionals.

An uncontested trial concerning child support obligations for a dependent child.

The applicant mother sought guideline child support retroactive to May 1, 2015, contribution to section 7 expenses, and costs.

The respondent father did not participate in the proceedings despite proper notice and multiple court attendances.

The court found the respondent had an obligation to pay child support, imputed income for years where disclosure was not provided, awarded prospective support from the date of notice, and made a retroactive award for a two-year period.

The court also determined which claimed expenses qualified as section 7 expenses and apportioned them based on the parties' respective incomes.

Costs were awarded to the successful applicant.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's answer and dismiss all claims therein.

The respondent failed to comply with multiple court orders requiring financial disclosure, did not attend court proceedings, did not communicate with counsel, and left the jurisdiction.

The court found this to be an egregious and exceptional case warranting the striking of the respondent's pleadings.

The respondent's answer was struck and all claims dismissed, allowing the applicant to proceed on an uncontested basis with her amended application.