Wendy Malcolm

The mother sought to relocate with the child from Prince Edward County to Burlington, seeking sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence.

The father opposed the relocation and sought shared parenting time, later requesting primary residence for himself.

The court, applying the best interests of the child test under the Divorce Act, granted the mother sole decision-making authority and primary residence, finding her plan more child-focused and noting the father's poor communication and uncooperative behaviour.

The relocation was authorized, and a detailed parenting schedule was established.

A young person was charged with theft of a dirt bike valued at approximately $2,000 under section 334(b) of the Criminal Code.

The bike was stolen from the Mohawk Bay of Quinte Territory on or about September 26, 2017, and was recovered several days later in a severely damaged condition.

The Crown's case relied on testimony from witnesses who claimed the accused admitted to giving the bike to another youth.

However, the court found significant inconsistencies and credibility issues in the Crown's witness testimony, including contradictory statements about how the bike was obtained, material inconsistencies between police statements and trial testimony, and evidence of motive to fabricate.

The accused testified and denied both stealing the bike and giving it to anyone.

The court acquitted the accused, finding that the Crown had failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is a costs endorsement following the court's dismissal of the respondent father's application to change a custody order.

The applicant mother, as the successful party, sought costs under Family Law Rule 24(1).

The court awarded costs of $2,000.00 plus disbursements of $1,304.40 for police occurrence reports, payable within 120 days.

The court declined to award costs for proceedings before other judges where costs were not reserved, and rejected the mother's request for additional costs based on alleged re-victimization, finding no authority for such damages in a costs decision.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a 2013 custody order that granted sole custody to the mother with no access to the father.

The father sought alternate weekend access and equal holiday parenting time.

The court applied the two-stage test from Gordon v. Goertz, requiring the father to first establish a material change in circumstances affecting the child's best interests.

Although the father demonstrated positive life changes including stable employment and a committed relationship, the court found no material change in circumstances that was not foreseeable at the time of the original order.

The court was particularly concerned about the father's history of domestic violence, threats against the mother, breach of the restraining order, ongoing conflict in subsequent relationships, lack of insight into his behaviour, and his previous abandonment of supervised access.

The application was dismissed.

A child protection application concerning a First Nations child born prematurely to a 16-year-old mother.

The child was apprehended after the parents failed to follow safety plans.

The applicant society sought Crown wardship for adoption purposes.

The respondent mother proposed placement with her sister, C.A., as a kin placement.

The court found that the child has special physical, mental and emotional needs requiring specialized care.

After assessing the proposed kin placement and considering the best interests of the child under the Child and Family Services Act, including the child's First Nations heritage, the court determined that Crown wardship with placement in the current First Nations foster family was in the child's best interests.

The court made an order for Crown wardship without access for purposes of adoption.

This case concerns the care and custody of a child (B.N.) born in 2015 who has been in the care of the Society since October 2015.

The child was found to be in need of protection in April 2016 due to neglect and risk of emotional harm.

On September 25, 2017, the child was made a Ward of the Crown with a plan for adoption by the maternal grandfather and step-grandmother in Alberta.

However, the step-grandmother withdrew the adoption plan in October 2017, citing concerns about the mother's continued drug use, lack of commitment to the agreed plan, and the grandfather's deteriorating health.

The mother sought to enforce the original plan or obtain a full assessment of the grandparents.

The court found that the withdrawal of the plan could not be revived and that placement with the grandparents would not be in the child's best interests.

The court confirmed the Crown Wardship order without access for purposes of adoption, finding that the child requires permanency and that the Society should place the child with an adoptive family.

A motion to vary a temporary care and custody order under the Child and Family Services Act.

The applicant Children's Aid Society sought to change the joint week-about custody arrangement to place the child in the sole care of the father and step-mother, with alternate weekend access to the mother, subject to society supervision.

The respondent mother opposed the variation, arguing there had been no material change in circumstances.

The court found that the mother's unilateral change to the child's medication without consulting the father or society, combined with her unilateral decisions regarding the child's services, constituted a material change in circumstances that affected the risk of harm to the child.

The court granted the variation, finding that the child required a stable, consistent environment with one decision-maker for medical, educational, and behavioural matters.

The Director of the Family Responsibility Office sought a default order and committal term against a support payor who had accumulated $174,043.50 in arrears on a $2,500 monthly spousal support obligation.

The respondent had a history of non-compliance with court orders spanning multiple years, including failed motions to change and constitutional challenges.

The court found the respondent had the ability to pay but deliberately chose not to do so.

The court rejected arguments that Gladue principles applied to support enforcement proceedings and that the matter should be referred to a Justice Circle.

A final default order was issued requiring payment of arrears within 60 days, with a 180-day committal term for default, plus ongoing monthly support obligations with a 5-day committal term per default.

A child protection proceeding under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act involving a child born with neonatal abstinence syndrome due to in-utero drug exposure.

The child was apprehended at birth and remained in Society care.

The mother sought return of the child subject to supervision, while the biological father (identified through DNA testing) supported the mother's position.

The Society sought Crown wardship for purposes of adoption.

The court found the child in need of protection due to risk of emotional harm from parental conflict, unresolved maternal trauma and anger management issues, ongoing health concerns, and past substance abuse.

The court ordered Crown wardship without access, finding this was in the child's best interests despite the mother's improvements and demonstrated parenting capacity during supervised access.

A costs decision following a jurisdictional hearing regarding custody and access of a child.

The applicant mother sought to maintain jurisdiction in Ontario after relocating with the child from Nova Scotia without the respondent father's consent.

The respondent father sought to have the matter heard in Nova Scotia.

The court determined that Nova Scotia was the correct jurisdiction.

The respondent was successful and sought costs of $9,250.00.

The court awarded costs of $3,000.00 inclusive of tax and expenses, considering the importance and complexity of the issues, the mother's financial circumstances, the lack of reasonable settlement offers, and the mother's unreasonable conduct in unilaterally relocating the child.

The applicant mother removed the child from Nova Scotia to Ontario without notice to the father, claiming it was a vacation.

When she did not return on the scheduled date, she commenced an application for custody in Ontario.

The court considered whether Ontario had jurisdiction to hear the matter.

The father obtained a custody order in Nova Scotia.

The court found that the child's habitual residence was Nova Scotia, not Ontario, and that the mother had removed the child without the father's consent or acquiescence.

The court vacated the ex parte order granted on November 3, 2015, and declined jurisdiction, finding that Nova Scotia was the appropriate forum.

A costs decision following a three-day family law trial concerning the primary residence of a child.

The applicant mother was successful in obtaining primary residence of the child in Ottawa, while the respondent father sought to retain custody in Trenton.

Both parties were members of the military.

The court awarded costs to the successful mother, but at a reduced amount due to the complexity and importance of the mobility issue, the absence of a formal settlement offer from the mother, and the reasonableness of both parties' conduct throughout the proceedings.

A child protection application by Highland Shores Children's Aid Society seeking Crown wardship of two young children.

The Society alleged the children suffered physical harm and were at risk of emotional harm due to assault by the father, general neglect, parental substance abuse, and the mother's failure to emotionally support the child following disclosure of abuse.

The court found the father assaulted the older child by choking and striking her, and that both children were in need of protection.

The court rejected the parents' alternative plans for care and made both children wards of the Crown for purposes of adoption, with no parental access but with access between the siblings.

A motion brought by an incarcerated mother seeking temporary access to her newborn child at a maximum security detention facility.

The mother, detained on armed robbery charges and awaiting trial, requested that the child be brought to the Quinte Detention Centre twice monthly for visits through a glass partition.

The child, placed with paternal grandparents in Renfrew County (three hours away), suffered from reflux disorder and car sickness.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that in-person access at the detention facility would not foster a positive relationship and could jeopardize the child's health.

The court prioritized the child's best interests over the parent's desire to bond.

The applicant Children's Aid Society sought to maintain temporary care and custody of two young children apprehended on December 19, 2012, due to serious neglect concerns.

The children were found to be severely malnourished and suffering from developmental delays and medical neglect.

The respondent parents sought return of the children, proposing supervision by extended family members.

The court found that the children were at imminent risk of physical harm due to neglect of basic needs, including nutrition, medical care, and developmental stimulation.

The court determined that a temporary supervision order would be inadequate to protect the children given the mother's significant cognitive limitations and the parents' failure to recognize the seriousness of the protection concerns.

The court ordered the children to remain in the Society's care pending completion of a parenting capacity assessment.

A young person was charged with sexual assault of a 13-year-old complainant following a party in Belleville, Ontario.

The Crown proceeded by indictment.

The defence admitted the sexual assault occurred but contested the identity of the perpetrator.

The trial focused on identification evidence, including the complainant's testimony, a properly conducted photo line-up, DNA evidence from a t-shirt found at the scene, and corroborating witness testimony.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable, and the identification evidence, considered as a whole, established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.