Wiriranai Kapurura

On a cross-border parenting jurisdiction motion involving parallel proceedings in Ontario and the Navajo Nation Family Court, the court held that the child was habitually resident in Ontario at the commencement of the Ontario application under s. 22 of the Children’s Law Reform Act.

Applying the statutory framework explained in Dunmore, the court found the child was residing in Ontario with the father's consent or implied consent and that Ontario had become the child's home rather than a temporary visit.

The court declined to refuse jurisdiction under s. 25, notwithstanding the advanced state of the foreign proceeding and the child's cultural ties to the Navajo Nation, because substantial evidence concerning best interests was in Ontario and neither parent sought the child's removal from Ontario.

The father's jurisdiction motion was dismissed.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for a temporary order to place two children in the care of their mother, with supervised access for the father, due to concerns of physical and emotional harm arising from severe post-separation conflict.

The court found that both parents had pre-intervention charge of the children under a shared parenting schedule.

However, the court concluded there were reasonable grounds to believe the children would suffer harm if returned to joint care, citing the father's use of physical discipline, coercive control, and family violence.

Finding that supervision terms would be inadequate to protect the children in joint care, the court placed the children in the temporary care and custody of the mother and ordered supervised access for the father.

Following a trial regarding the school placement of the parties' child, the respondent mother sought costs of $84,402.53.

The applicant father sought an order that each party bear their own costs.

Although the mother was partially successful in having the child moved to a school within her catchment area, the court found that she had engaged in egregious and unreasonable conduct, including breaching court orders, engaging in alienating behaviour, and providing evidence that was neither credible nor reliable.

The court also noted that the mother improperly sought costs for steps that had already been resolved by minutes of settlement.

Consequently, the court dismissed the mother's request for costs and ordered each party to bear their own costs.

The parties, who separated in 2019, engaged in a high-conflict parenting dispute regarding their two children.

The father sought a shared parenting schedule and split decision-making responsibility, while the mother sought primary residence and sole decision-making responsibility.

The court found that the father had engaged in family violence by weaponizing the mother's past involvement in sex work against her and had acted manipulatively regarding parenting arrangements and child support.

The court rejected the Office of the Children's Lawyer's recommendation for shared parenting, finding it would increase conflict and destabilize the children.

The mother was granted primary residence and sole decision-making responsibility, with the father maintaining alternate weekend and Tuesday parenting time.

The court also fixed child support arrears at $19,187.90 and ordered the parties to share section 7 expenses equally.

Temporary motion regarding relocation of two children (ages 5 and 2) from Belleville back to Toronto.

The mother relocated to Belleville with the children following a domestic incident that resulted in the father's arrest on assault charges.

The father sought return of the children to their habitual residence in Toronto, police enforcement, and costs.

The mother opposed the return and sought primary residence and sole decision-making.

The court found both parties bore the onus of proving whether relocation was in the children's best interests under s. 39.4(7) of the CLRA, and the mother failed to meet her burden.

The court ordered the children returned to Toronto, granted primary residence to the mother on a temporary basis, and dismissed the requests for sole decision-making, police enforcement, and costs.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a final parenting order regarding the child's involvement in tennis.

The existing order, made on consent in April 2024, limited the child to two tennis training sessions per week and a maximum of 12 tournaments annually.

The father sought to vary these provisions to allow the child to attend all training, matches, qualifications, and tournaments required to maintain her place on Team Ontario and potentially Team Canada.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, arguing there was no material change in circumstances.

The court found that the father failed to meet the threshold requirement of demonstrating a material change in circumstances affecting the child.

The court noted that the child's progression in tennis was contemplated at the time the existing order was made, and the father's claims were substantially similar to those raised prior to the original order.

The court also found that the father had not complied with the existing order and had provided misleading information to the court.

The respondent brought a motion to strike the applicant's motion to change and to prohibit further motions without leave of court and security for costs.

The applicant sought dismissal of the respondent's motion and leave to proceed with her motion to change.

The court found that the applicant had a history of non-compliance with court orders requiring leave before bringing motions to change, had engaged in abuse of process through relitigation of settled issues, and lacked credibility.

The court struck the applicant's motion to change, dismissed her request for leave, and dismissed the respondent's request for security for costs, finding that existing leave requirements were sufficient safeguards.

Following a family law trial concerning a school-aged child, the court determined parenting, education, and child support issues under the Children’s Law Reform Act and the Child Support Guidelines.

The court found that both parents loved the child and both had committed forms of family violence, but concluded that the child required greater school-week stability and that the father had demonstrated stronger engagement with the child’s attendance and school functioning.

The existing 2-2-3 shared parenting regime was found not to be in the child’s best interests, although the mother’s time still met the s. 9 shared-parenting threshold when calculated hourly.

The court ordered primary residence with the father during the school year, preserved the child’s attendance at private school, prohibited homeschooling, imposed detailed decision-making and communication terms, imputed income to the mother from October 1, 2025, and ordered set-off child support together with proportionate section 7 contributions.

This decision addresses a child protection application under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, involving two young children found to be in need of protection due to risks of physical harm and exposure to family violence.

The court carefully analyzed the mental health challenges of the mother, the domestic violence between the parents, and the suitability of placement with the maternal aunt.

The court found the mother lacked insight and compliance with treatment, and the father had a history of family violence.

The children were placed in the care of the maternal aunt with supervision by the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, and access orders were made for the parents with conditions.

The judgment also provides a detailed roadmap for the parents to address the protection concerns and work towards reunification.

This decision addresses a motion brought by the mother seeking to maintain their child's current private school placement at Kingsway College School for the 2025-2026 academic year.

The father opposed the placement, proposing a public school alternative or a reduction in his financial contribution to private school expenses.

The court emphasized the importance of maintaining the status quo in temporary parenting orders absent compelling reasons, and found the father failed to provide sufficient financial disclosure or evidence to justify a change.

The court also expressed concern about the father's coercive behavior and unilateral actions.

Ultimately, the court ordered the child to remain at Kingsway with the father contributing 95% of the educational expenses and the mother 5%, consistent with their prior agreement.

This decision addresses a motion to change parenting and support orders concerning an 11-year-old child.

The court found a material change in circumstances, including significant parental conflict and family violence, warranting a change from joint custody to sole decision-making and primary residence with the mother.

The father’s conduct, including withholding the child, social media harassment, and failure to comply with court orders, was found harmful to the child.

The court ordered supervised parenting time for the father, restricted his social media activity, and granted police enforcement of parenting orders.

Child support arrears were calculated with income imputed to the father due to non-disclosure.

This trial addressed two primary issues: whether the applicant (wife) was entitled to spousal support and whether the respondent (husband) had demonstrated a settled intention to treat the wife's two children from previous relationships as children of his family.

The court found that the husband had not demonstrated a settled intention to treat the children as his family, dismissing the wife's child support claim.

However, the court determined that the wife had established some compensatory entitlement to spousal support due to economic advantages conferred on the husband during their marriage and the immigration sponsorship process.

The quantum and duration of spousal support were referred back to the case management judge for determination.

The respondent sought a final restraining order against the applicant and an order dispensing with the applicant's consent for the child's identification documents, citing a pattern of family violence.

The applicant denied the allegations and sought dismissal of the restraining order, proposing alternative contact restrictions or a delayed re-application.

The court found the applicant had perpetrated family violence, characterized by a cycle of abuse, and that the respondent had reasonable grounds to fear for her safety.

The court granted the final restraining order against the applicant, including restrictions on contact and proximity, and dispensed with the applicant's consent for the child's identification documents, effective immediately and subject to review after 36 months without incident.

The case concerned child support arrangements for the parties' two children.

The applicant mother sought child support based on the father's income, while the respondent father sought an offset amount based on a claim of shared parenting time (40% or more) under section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines.

The court conducted an hourly calculation of parenting time and found that the father did not meet the 40% threshold (3,491 hours vs. 3,504 required).

Consequently, the father's claim for shared parenting and offset support was dismissed.

The court ordered the father to pay the full table amount of child support based on his income for 2022, 2023, and an agreed-upon income for 2024 onwards.

The court also drew an adverse inference against the father for failing to provide updated financial disclosure and dismissed his claim for prior direct payments due to lack of proof.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought two protection applications concerning children Iz (6 years old) and J (5 months old), both in the society's temporary care.

The applications alleged the mother's substance misuse, neglect, inadequate supervision, unstable housing, and inability to meet the children's needs, including special needs, alongside concerns related to the disappearance and death of another child, Nv.

The mother sought dismissal of the application for J or, alternatively, a 6-month supervision order for both children in her care, with access.

The court found J to be in need of protection, citing overwhelming evidence of risk of harm due to the mother's serious lack of judgment, dishonesty, and chaotic lifestyle, particularly concerning Nv's death.

The court dismissed the mother's request for a supervision order and access, finding her unreliable and her plan inadequate.

Both children were placed in the extended society care of the Children's Aid Society, with an order for sibling access between Iz and J, and with their other siblings R and A in Peel CAS care.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a protection application concerning an 11-month-old child, KL, alleging the mother, A.M., was unable to provide adequate care due to severe mental health challenges, non-compliance with treatment, and lack of support.

The father, K.W., was in default.

The court found the child in need of protection due to the mother's inconsistent medication adherence, poor insight into her mental health, and inability to provide a stable environment.

The court ordered the child to remain in the care and custody of a kith caregiver, H.O., for six months, subject to society supervision.

The mother's access was reduced to supervised bi-weekly visits, and the court provided a roadmap for the mother to work towards reunification.

The father sought costs of $31,867.15 following an uncontested trial of his motion to change parenting arrangements.

The mother's response had been struck for failure to comply with previous costs orders.

The court found the father was presumptively entitled to costs as the successful party but reduced the quantum significantly.

The court declined to award costs for prior steps in the proceeding, noting the father sought costs for events where costs had already been decided.

The court also reduced the costs due to duplication of services by the father's two lawyers.

The father was awarded $7,317.55 in costs, and the mother was ordered to provide proof of payment before bringing any future motion to change.

The Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion for temporary care and custody of a child, Z, seeking placement with the paternal grandparents (MY and LY) subject to supervision.

The father (ZF) and aunt (AR) sought to maintain the child in their joint care.

The mother (W-D) did not participate.

The court found that the grandparents and father had joint pre-intervention charge of the child.

The court dismissed the father's request, finding that placing the child with the father and aunt would pose a risk of harm due to parental non-compliance with no-contact orders, self-help tactics, and the aunt's inability to cooperate.

The court ordered the child to be placed in the temporary care and custody of the grandparents, subject to society supervision, and set out terms for parental access.

The applicant, Maria Netkal, sought costs against the respondent, Yahya Gulma, following his withdrawal of a motion to change child support.

The court found the respondent failed to rebut the presumption that he should pay the applicant's costs, given his history of non-disclosure and attempts to relitigate previously decided issues.

The court awarded the applicant $4,000.00 in costs, payable monthly, and enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

The respondent's request for costs was dismissed.

This child protection trial concerned whether the two-year-old child, EL, was in need of protection and the appropriate dispositional orders.

The Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto sought extended society care due to concerns about the mother's cognitive limitations and inability to protect the child from the stepfather, who had a significant history of sexual assault and criminal convictions, including against a child.

The mother and grandmother sought the child's return to their care, subject to supervision, and access.

The court found the child to be in need of protection due to risks of physical and sexual harm.

It ordered extended society care, granted the mother and grandmother supervised access, and denied the stepfather any access, citing his high risk and the mother's inability to protect the child from him.