William Hutcheson

This motion, brought by Wahgoshig First Nation and supported by Native Child and Family Services of Toronto (NCFS), sought to transfer a child protection proceeding from Toronto to Timmins.

The child, nearly 9 years old, had resided in Wahgoshig First Nation for 8 years under a Customary Care Agreement, which was recently terminated.

Kunuwanimano Child & Family Services (Kunu) opposed the transfer, arguing Toronto was the proper venue and raising concerns about service capacity.

The court found a preponderance of convenience favored Timmins, given the child's long-term residence, connections, and the location of current protection concerns.

Despite NCFS initially lacking territorial jurisdiction to file in Toronto, the court, relying on the Family Law Rules, ordered the transfer to Timmins to ensure the child's best interests and avoid legal limbo.

This is a costs decision following a motion and cross-motion regarding child access.

The father (Respondent) was largely successful in the underlying access motion, having his access reinstated despite the mother's (Applicant) allegations of abuse and unilateral suspension of access.

The court found the mother's conduct during the litigation to be highly unreasonable, including breaching prior orders, manipulating evidence (audio recordings, therapist involvement), and taking unreasonable positions.

The father was found entitled to costs, rejecting the mother's "divided success" argument.

While the father also engaged in some inappropriate behaviour (recording the child), it was deemed insignificant compared to the mother's conduct.

The court considered the mother's ability to pay, reducing the father's requested costs and allowing for installment payments, but adjusted the post-judgment interest rate to 5% to account for the father's interest charges on his legal fees.

The court declined to adjust section 7 expenses in lieu of costs due to insufficient evidence and improper pleading.

The respondent father brought a second motion for contempt against the applicant mother, alleging that she willfully breached a supervised access order by failing to arrange for supervised access to continue following her relocation from Kingston to Kitchener.

The father sought an adjournment pending completion of phallometric testing.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding that the mother had not willfully or intentionally breached the order and that the delay in commencing supervised access was the responsibility of the supervised access centre, which declined to provide services due to concerns of a sexual nature.

The court awarded costs to the mother and declined to impose a requirement that the father pay outstanding costs orders before bringing further motions.

This is a costs decision following a trial in a family law matter involving custody and access.

The applicant was successful at trial and obtained an order granting supervised access to the respondent with various restrictions, including a 100-metre exclusion zone from the applicant's home, workplace, and child's school, and limiting communications to a designated program.

The respondent, who was self-represented, opposed the costs award and made unfounded allegations against the applicant's counsel.

The court awarded costs on a full recovery basis, finding both that the applicant was the successful party and that the respondent acted in bad faith through persistent attempts to have the applicant's counsel removed from the record by complaining to the judge, legal aid, and the Law Society.

In a family law motion heard in the Integrated Domestic Violence Court, the applicant sought temporary custody of two young daughters with a 50/50 parenting schedule, while the respondent sought to maintain primary custody with supervised access for the applicant.

The court considered evidence of domestic conflict, anger management issues, marijuana use, and parenting capacity.

The court found that the respondent had been the primary caregiver and that the applicant had not addressed behavioral issues despite recommendations from child protection services.

The court awarded temporary custody to the respondent with continued supervised access for the applicant on the existing schedule, conditioned on the applicant's completion of a parenting program and abstinence from marijuana use with regular testing.

Child support was ordered based on imputed income, but no spousal support was awarded.

This is a judgment after trial in a family law application concerning access to a child.

The mother sought sole custody (granted on consent), child support (granted on consent), and supervised access to the child.

The father sought unsupervised access with gradual expansion to alternate weekends.

The court found that the father's volatile temper, manipulative personality, concerning comments about the child's body, and pattern of emotional abuse toward the mother and her counsel created serious risks to the child's safety and wellbeing.

The father refused to undergo recommended psychological and parenting capacity assessments despite knowing these were conditions for unsupervised access.

The court ordered that access remain supervised at a government-operated supervised access centre for two hours, three out of four weekends, with strict conditions on communication and contact with the mother.