This case comment was prepared by Emily Ernst (law student volunteer) and Rachel Parry (Staff Lawyer).
This case involved a dispute between parents over which school their child, aged 4, should attend, with both parents wanting the child to attend the public school in their local catchment area.
Read more
The applicant father brought a motion for an order granting him unsupervised parenting time with the two children, who were 4 and 8 years old. The respondent mother, who was unrepresented, opposed this motion. As she had from the time of separation, she offered supervised parenting time in a supervised access centre as the appropriate arrangement.
This case summary was prepared by Pamela Cross.
In this case (Y.S. v J.S., 2024 ONSC 1028), two young children – one and two years old – were removed from Pembroke, Ontario, by their mother and taken to the United States, ostensibly for a week-long visit with her sister.
The Ontario Court of Appeal (ONCA) recently released a decision (Shipton v. Shipton) overturning a trial court decision that had prohibited a mother from relocating from Ontario to Ireland with her young child. The decision offers some helpful insights into what is required for an appeal court to overturn a decision from a lower court and canvasses the issue of relocation when one parent has raised allegations of family violence.
This case summary was prepared by Pamela Cross.
In this case, Justice Sullivan comprehensively reviewed the evidence, law and case law in making an order that the 14-year-old son be required to participate in reunification therapy, against his wishes, largely because she believed the father had influenced the child to such an extent that his wishes were not his own.
Anderson v Anderson is about the validity of a separation agreement that was made without full financial disclosure and independent legal advice. In their decision, the Supreme Court of Canada had to balance the rights of people to settle their own domestic affairs after separation with the need to protect against unfairness and exploitation.
The mother and father lived in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates (“UAE”) for nearly a decade with their two children, who are under the age of 5. Neither parent is a citizen of the UAE but the father has a residency permit which allowed him to sponsor the mother and their children.
This is an interesting decision where the mother in this case sought a declaration that a foreign divorce was not valid in order to proceed with a claim for spousal support under the Divorce Act. The father argued that the divorce was valid and sought to dismiss the mother’s claim for spousal support due to a lack of jurisdiction.
Case summary prepared by Luke’s Place Advocacy Director, Pamela Cross
In this case (F.S. v. M.B.T. 2023 ONCJ 102), Justice Sherr carefully analyzes the context of family violence, including coercive control, when making a decision related to parenting arrangements for a 12-year-old child.
This case involved a father who wanted to change a final order about parenting that had been made over 7 years earlier. In order to change a final order, the father brought a motion to change and had to prove that there had been a “material change in circumstances” since the making of the final order.
