Tricia Simon

This temporary care and custody hearing involved three Indigenous children affiliated with Caldwell First Nations.

The Family & Children’s Services of St. Thomas and Elgin sought to place the eldest child (L.A.) with the father and the two younger children (M.W. and H.W.) with the mother, subject to supervision.

The father opposed, seeking custody of all three.

The court, applying the Child, Youth and Family Services Act and the paramount An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, found that L.A. could remain with the father under terms.

However, M.W. and H.W. were at risk of physical and emotional harm with the father due to ongoing verbal and physical abuse, neglect, and the father's non-compliance with previous court orders.

The court ordered M.W. and H.W. into the temporary care of the mother, with terms to ensure their safety and cultural connection.

The appellant father appealed a trial decision dismissing his Hague Convention application for the return of the parties' three children to Michigan and assuming jurisdiction under section 23 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The trial judge found that the father did not have custody rights at the time of removal and that returning the children to Michigan without their primary caregiver mother, who lacked immigration status to return, would expose them to a grave risk of harm from the abusive father.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of the risk of harm or her decision not to defer to the Michigan court.

This trial concerned parenting and child support arrangements for two children.

The father sought joint decision-making and shared parenting, while the mother sought sole decision-making and a more limited parenting schedule for the father.

The court found the father not credible, citing his history of family violence, non-compliance with court orders, and attempts to conceal income by operating businesses under another's name.

The court imputed a higher income to the father and ordered him to pay retroactive child support and the full amount of special and extraordinary expenses.

The mother was granted sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, with a structured parenting time schedule for the father that was less than he sought, particularly for the younger child.

The applicant father brought a Hague Convention application seeking the return of his 8-year-old daughter to Italy after the respondent mother wrongfully removed her to Canada in 2017.

The mother argued that Italy was not the child's habitual residence, that returning her would pose a grave risk of harm, and that the child was now settled in Ontario.

The court rejected all of the mother's arguments, finding that the child's habitual residence was Italy, the allegations of abuse did not meet the high threshold for grave risk, and the child's status in Canada was precarious.

The court ordered the immediate return of the child to Italy.

Following a five-day trial regarding child mobility, the successful respondent mother sought full indemnity costs of $36,691.05.

The applicant father argued against a costs order due to his impecuniosity and its potential impact on his ability to pay child support and fund access.

The court found the father's litigation position unreasonable and noted the mother beat her offers to settle.

The court generally accepted that full indemnity costs were justified but moderated the quantum to $30,000 payable to Legal Aid Ontario in recognition of the father's current financial circumstances.

The applicant sought custody and child support for a minor child, with retroactive support dating to 2012.

The respondent sought joint custody and weekend access, and opposed the retroactive support claim.

The respondent failed to provide adequate financial disclosure despite two court orders and multiple extensions.

The court declined to strike the respondent's pleadings but drew adverse inferences from the missing disclosure, finding the respondent was intentionally underemployed.

The court imputed income based on the respondent's average earnings from his last three years of employment and ordered temporary child support of $855 monthly commencing January 1, 2017.

A custody and access trial involving a child born to unmarried parents who subsequently married and separated.

The applicant mother, facing deportation to St. Vincent due to illegal immigration status, sought sole custody and permission to remove the child from Canada.

The respondent father sought sole or joint custody with a non-removal order.

The court found the mother's evidence lacked credibility due to her illegal status and inconsistent testimony.

The court ordered joint custody with primary residence to the mother while she remains in Canada, with extensive access to the father.

If deported, sole custody transfers to the father.

The court imposed a non-removal order preventing the mother from taking the child out of Ontario without court order, while permitting the father to travel freely with the child.

A confirmation hearing under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, 2002 regarding a provisional order made by the Stratford Court in England for child support.

The respondent father, residing in Ontario, had ceased paying child support for his daughter living in England.

The court confirmed the father's biological relationship to the child and his duty to support her.

The court imputed income to the father at $67,656 annually based on evidence that he was intentionally underemployed as a Master Electrician, despite being capable of earning the fair wage rate for electricians.

The court ordered monthly child support of $618 and fixed arrears at $16,068, payable by November 12, 2015.

The issue of nursery expenses was adjourned pending additional information from the designated authority.