In April 2013, the parties separated and agreed that the Appellant mother would take the children to Ontario where the children would attend school. The Respondent father executed a consent letter whereby the children would have to return to Germany by August 15, 2014. The Respondent’s letter further granted the Appellant “temporary” physical custody of the children until that date. The children and the Applicant traveled to Ontario on April 19, 2013.
In this child protection proceeding, the Respondent father brought a motion seeking DNA testing to determine if he is the biological father of the infant child, KS. The Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto who apprehended KS neither consented nor opposed the father’s motion.
The unmarried parties separated in 2009 after residing together for two years. They have a son together of whom the mother originally had temporary custody, and the father had extremely restricted access due to serious allegations the mother made against him. In 2012, the father was awarded custody and $11,500 in costs after the mother’s consistent dishonesty came to light during the custody proceedings. She was given generous access despite her deliberate attempts to alienate the child from his father. A further $20,000 in costs was awarded against the mother in 2014 following a contempt order and a suspected attempt to abduct the child from Canada.
The appellant mother, HD, and the respondent father, DD, were married and have two young children together. During the marriage, the Children’s Aid Society (CAS) became involved because of concerns for the children’s mental and emotional wellbeing as a result of exposure to domestic violence. Following separation, there were several incidents following which DD pleaded guilty to criminal harassment HD.
HD was later granted sole custody on a consent Order. CAS recommended against unsupervised access for the father, but DD refused to engage in supervised access. After receiving a positive and supportive response from CAS, HD moved with the children to Alberta. At this point, the father had not seen the children for nearly 6 months.
DD brought a motion to vary the consent Order to gain custody of the children. An ex parte Order was made in Ontario ordering HD to return the children to DD’s temporary care while the motion to vary was adjourned. HD returned to Ontario for the hearing while the children remained in Alberta as per an arrangement with child welfare authorities.
The parties married in an Islamic wedding ceremony in England, subsequently married legally in Ontario, and have a young son together. In the two years after the child’s birth, the family traveled extensively, splitting their living arrangements for a few months at a time between Pakistan, Ontario, and England. They lived in Ontario for less than a year then went to stay in Pakistan where the father intended to build a business. The family planned to eventually return to live in Ontario.
While in Pakistan, the mother took the son to stay with her parents. Once the father learned that she had taken him to England, he reported the abduction, returned to Ontario, and commenced an application to have the child returned to Ontario. The mother began proceedings in England and received an ex parte order preventing the child’s removal from the U.K.
The parties separated on March 11, 2014, however, a trial would not take place until February of 2016 to determine custody and access arrangements for their two young children on a final basis.
After separation, the father remained in the matrimonial home near the children’s school in Hamilton and the mother moved in with her step-father in Burlington, which was much further from the children’s school.
This case addresses the following issues and considers potential basis for appealing a trial court decision with respect to each issue: In what circumstances can a court award sole custody? Does a court have the discretion to order child support in an amount which was determined based on past income? Can a gift or bequest…
The parties never married but had a toxic on-again/off-again relationship with significant domestic violence and substance abuse issues. They had a six year old son who had spent most of his life embroiled in the midst of their parenting dispute. The main issue at trial was whether the father should have overnight access since the boy lived primarily with the mother.
In this high conflict case, the grandparents sought access to their granddaughter after a falling out with her parents.
In this case, the Court deals with a judge’s discretion to permit or deny a parent to travel with their child to a non-Hague Convention signatory country where the other parent suspects an intent to escape Ontario’s jurisdiction over the child.