A.C. Trousdale

The child protection agency sought an order placing a young Indigenous child in the custody of extended family members, while the parents sought the child's return to their care.

The child had been apprehended as an infant due to failure to thrive.

The court found that the mother, who has cognitive limitations, would be overwhelmed caring for three young children.

The court ordered that the child remain in the custody of the extended family members pursuant to section 102 of the CYFSA, with supervised access for the parents.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for parenting time during a period when his step-children were required to quarantine for Covid-19 after arriving from the United States, the court determined the issue of costs.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs, while the applicant sought partial indemnity or no costs.

The court found no bad faith by either party but held the respondent's position was reasonable to protect the children's health.

Applying the principles from Mattina, the court awarded the successful respondent partial indemnity costs fixed at $2,500.

The children's aid society sought an order placing a 16-month-old child in extended society care for the purpose of adoption.

The parents sought the return of the child subject to society supervision.

The court found that the parents' unaddressed mental health issues, history of child welfare involvement, and relationship instability posed too great a risk to the child's safety and well-being.

The court ordered the child placed in extended society care.

Applying the expanded access test under the CYFSA, the court found that an access order was in the child's best interests as the relationship was beneficial and there was no evidence it would impair future adoption opportunities.

Access was granted at the society's discretion, with a minimum of once per month.

The applicant father brought a motion to change an amending agreement to terminate child support for two adult children.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion to change the agreement to increase support based on the father's increased income and changes in the children's living arrangements.

The court dismissed the father's request to terminate support, finding that both children remained children of the marriage.

The court ordered the father to pay ongoing child support based on his prior years' incomes, accounting for the children's post-secondary education and living arrangements.

The children's aid society brought a status review application seeking Crown wardship of two children for the purpose of adoption.

The mother sought the return of the children subject to society supervision, while the father was noted in default.

The court found that the mother's ongoing struggle with illicit substance abuse and her inability to maintain sustained abstinence posed a significant risk to the children, particularly given one child's developmental delays.

The court also noted concerns regarding ongoing contact with the abusive father.

The children were made Crown wards for the purpose of adoption, with the mother granted access at the society's discretion and the father denied access.

Following an application for directions regarding a holograph codicil, the estate trustee sought full indemnity costs of $72,441.81 from the unsuccessful respondent beneficiary.

The respondent argued costs should be paid by the estate due to ambiguities caused by the testator.

The court applied the modern approach to estate litigation costs, finding the respondent's position unreasonable given her legal background.

However, the court reduced the claimed amount, ordering the respondent to pay $20,000 and the estate to pay $15,000 to the estate trustee.

Following the dismissal of a motion brought by the defendant and a lien claimant to declare the plaintiff's construction lien expired, the court determined the costs payable to the successful plaintiff.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of over $80,000, citing an unaccepted offer to settle and the importance of the motion.

The court found the offer did not comply with Rule 49 and awarded partial indemnity costs.

Applying the principle of proportionality and considering the factors in Rule 57.01, the court fixed costs at $22,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

Following a prior summary judgment finding that the children were in need of protection under s. 37(2) of the Child and Family Services Act, the court conducted a disposition trial to determine the appropriate order under ss. 57 and 57.1 of the Act.

The court considered competing plans: returning the children to the mother under supervision, leaving them with the father under supervision, or granting custody to the father.

Evidence included concerns about the mother’s home conditions, limited cooperation with the child protection agency, the influence of a boarder who exercised harsh discipline, and the mother’s difficulty implementing parenting supports.

The children had lived with the father for approximately 18 months and were adjusting well academically and socially.

Applying the best interests factors in s. 37(3), the court concluded that the children’s safety, stability, and developmental needs were best served by granting custody to the father.

Following a multi-day family law trial involving claims for divorce, equalization of net family property, spousal support, and unjust enrichment relating to improvements made to farm property owned by the wife's grandparents, the court determined costs.

The applicant had succeeded in obtaining a $50,000 judgment for unjust enrichment against the grandparents, while the respondent spouse obtained an equalization award exceeding $41,000 and dismissal of other claims occurred.

The court analyzed competing offers to settle under Rules 18 and 24 of the Family Law Rules and considered the relative success of the parties and the reasonableness of their settlement positions.

Although success was divided, the court found the applicant overall more successful, particularly on the unjust enrichment claim.

Costs were awarded to the applicant in a reduced and proportional amount.

The applicant children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking Crown wardship of a child with complex medical needs.

The child was apprehended after the father, who had primary care, was arrested for domestic assault and exhibited untreated mental health issues.

The child's health had significantly deteriorated in the father's care but stabilized in foster care.

The mother sought placement of the child with her, but the court noted her history of instability, daily marijuana use, and the child's medical requirements.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, determining the child was in need of protection and ordering Crown wardship with access to the mother at the society's discretion.