Ontario civil | Family Law | Children in need of protection | Practice and procedure in custody hearings
Mother, with whom child primarily resided since separation, raised concerns about her risk of emotional harm in father’s care. Children’s Aid Society’s motion for summary judgment was granted, with finding that child was in need of protection and order placing her in mother’s custody. Father appealed. Appeal dismissed. Father did not establish that child was suffering from parental alienation syndrome, as his own acknowledged and inappropriate conduct was clear and obvious cause of her great distress. Motions judge’s error in applying more stringent test for summary judgment did not affect determination that trial was not needed to establish that child was in need of protection. Each of findings to which father objected was supported by his own evidence, evidence of child admitted on consent, or hospital admission note that father used as part of his argument. Only piece of evidence that might have been misinterpreted was email that motion judge considered establishing that father discussed his concerns about parental alienation syndrome with child more than year before she expressed suicide threats. While email was ambiguous, resolving such ambiguity in father’s favour would clearly not have led to different result as it did not affect overall conclusion that father than been pressuring child on ongoing basis that culminated in her suicide threats so any error was not overriding. Father’s delay in prosecuting appeal also meant that, if he had succeed on merits, remedy sought could not have been granted in light of his non-communication with almost-16-year-old child for well over four years. Focus in child protection cases was safety and wellbeing of child which was inconsistent with re-litigating issues that arose so many years ago. Father could still avail himself of written monthly access ordered by motion judge to try to re-establish communication with child.
Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services v. L.V. (2019), 2019 CarswellOnt 2606, 2019 ONSC 1208, D.L. Corbett J., Myers J., and Sheard J. (Ont. Div. Ct.); affirmed (2016), 2016 CarswellOnt 18773, 2016 ONSC 7039, Quinlan J. (Ont. S.C.J.).