A. Katz

A motion brought by Hamilton Child and Family Supports seeking an extension of time under section 122 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 for a Métis child to remain in society care beyond the statutory 12-month limit.

The child's mother, who was incarcerated for manslaughter, has been released and is making substantial progress toward reunification.

The court granted a six-month extension, interpreting section 122 in light of the remedial nature of the federal legislation governing Indigenous child welfare and the principles of cultural continuity and substantive equality.

The applicant children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order that a 4.5-year-old child with autism spectrum disorder be placed in extended society care, with reduced access for the parents.

The parents opposed the motion, seeking to have the child placed in their care or to adjourn for updated parenting capacity assessments.

The court applied the test for summary judgment in child protection proceedings and found that there were genuine issues requiring a trial regarding the father's parenting plan and both parents' access.

The court noted that the existing parenting capacity assessments were outdated and that the COVID-19 pandemic had impacted the parents' ability to progress.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed and the matter was ordered to proceed to trial.

The applicant mother brought a motion to enforce a consent order regarding access, seeking a police enforcement clause after the respondent father's counsel sent a letter unilaterally declaring the father would take the child to a hockey tournament on the mother's weekend.

The court declined to order police enforcement, noting the harm it causes children, but ordered that the father's access would be automatically suspended if he interfered with the mother's weekend.

The court awarded the mother full indemnity costs of $3,000 due to the father's unreasonable and high-conflict behaviour.

The plaintiff moved for a third time for leave to amend his statement of claim, seeking declarations regarding share ownership, civil fraud, and oppression, after his initial claim on a promissory note was found to be statute-barred.

The court denied the motion, finding that the proposed amendments effectively sought consequential relief and were therefore subject to the expired two-year limitation period.

Furthermore, the court held the motion was an abuse of process and res judicata, as a similar motion had been dismissed in 2013.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order for Crown wardship without access for two children.

The mother opposed the motion but failed to file responding materials and sought an adjournment, which was denied.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, noting the mother's long-standing, unaddressed substance abuse and mental health issues, and her failure to engage with services.

Relying on expert assessments indicating the children required stability and specialized care, the court granted the motion, making the children Crown wards without access for the purpose of adoption.

The defendants brought a motion to stay the plaintiff's action in Ontario on the basis of *forum non conveniens*, arguing Alberta was the more appropriate forum.

The plaintiff, an Ontario printing company, sued for unpaid accounts from the defendants, Alberta-based publishers, for books printed in China and.

The defendants alleged significant deficiencies in the books.

Applying the *Van Breda* factors, the court found that while Ontario had jurisdiction, Alberta was clearly the more appropriate forum due to the location of the majority of witnesses (11 of 14 identified witnesses in Alberta/Vancouver), the bulk of physical evidence (77,000 books) in Alberta, and the performance of the contract in Alberta.

The Ontario action was stayed, with costs of the motion fixed at $6,500 payable by the plaintiff to the defendants in the cause, contingent on the plaintiff commencing an action in Alberta within 90 days.

The applicant father brought a motion to immediately implement the recommendations of an Office of the Children's Lawyer section 112 report on a temporary basis pending trial.

The report recommended that the parties' twin daughters reside primarily with the applicant.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, arguing that the status quo should be maintained.

The court dismissed the motion to change custody, finding no urgent situation requiring immediate intervention and emphasizing that untested professional reports should rarely be implemented on a temporary basis.

However, the court did order that neither party audio or videotape the children or each other for litigation purposes.

Addendum to a prior family law judgment correcting calculation errors relating to child support and equalization.

The court corrected the monthly table child support payable based on the payor’s income and recalculated retroactive support for a 40‑month period, resulting in reduced arrears.

Adjustments were also made to reflect an overpayment of child support and to revise the total arrears owed.

The equalization payment between the spouses was correspondingly recalculated after deducting the corrected arrears and other expenses.

The court reaffirmed related orders regarding education fund contributions, pension valuation disclosure, and potential sale of the matrimonial home if the equalization amount remained unpaid.

Following a family law trial, the court determined issues of equalization of net family property, child support, and spousal support after a 13‑year marriage with two children.

The respondent sought an unequal division of property under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act, alleging financial misconduct and depletion of assets by the applicant.

The court rejected the claim for unequal division, finding the evidence did not meet the high threshold of unconscionability required by the statute.

The court calculated the parties’ net family property and ordered an equalization payment, while declining to award spousal support due to the applicant’s extensive post‑separation payments toward household expenses.

Child support arrears and ongoing child support were ordered along with proportionate sharing of section 7 expenses.

In a child protection proceeding under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act, the court determined the temporary placement of three children.

The mother sought placement of all children with the maternal grandmother, citing allegations by one child that the father possessed weapons, used drugs, and engaged in abusive conduct.

The father denied the allegations and relied on a recent access order and a child protection worker’s investigation finding no safety concerns in his home.

The court found the allegations inconsistent with recent positive access experiences and unsupported by evidence.

A temporary order placed two children with their biological father under supervision and one child with the maternal grandparents under supervision.

The defendant was charged under section 149(2) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act with willfully failing to inform the WSIB of a material change in circumstances affecting his benefit entitlement.

Following a workplace accident in 2006 resulting in a temporal bone fracture, the defendant received benefits that were subsequently denied on appeal, leaving him subject to a potential repayment obligation exceeding half a million dollars.

During trial, the defendant collapsed in court, prompting a referral for fitness assessment under section 44 of the Provincial Offences Act.

The court found the defendant unfit to stand trial based on psychiatric evidence of conversion disorder and chronic post-traumatic stress disorder, and ordered the proceedings suspended.

On an interim custody motion and cross‑motion involving four young children, the court considered competing requests for parallel parenting and sole custody.

The mother sought temporary sole custody with limited access for the father based largely on allegations of domestic violence and an Office of the Children’s Lawyer report recommending that arrangement.

The father sought a parallel‑parenting structure and equal time.

Applying s. 16 of the Divorce Act and best‑interests principles, the court found significant credibility concerns regarding several abuse allegations and determined the status quo created after separation resulted largely from unilateral conduct by the mother.

The court declined to grant sole or joint custody and instead ordered a temporary divided parallel‑parenting regime allocating decision‑making authority between the parents and gradually expanding the father’s parenting time toward a structured rotating schedule.

The applicant father brought a motion for temporary sole custody of the parties' 11-year-old child, seeking to supersede an existing New York custody order that granted physical custody to the respondent mother.

The child had resided in New York with the mother for over a year prior to the application.

The court determined that sections 42 and 43 of the Children's Law Reform Act applied to the jurisdictional analysis.

Finding that the child's habitual residence had reverted to New York and that the balance of convenience favoured New York as the forum with the most substantial evidence, the court declined jurisdiction and dismissed the application.