Alex Finlayson

A Trial Management Conference was scheduled but did not proceed as planned.

Instead, the court addressed five procedural issues: (1) the withdrawal of constitutional jurisdiction challenges by both the mother and M'Chigeeng First Nation, with the mother now accepting the court's jurisdiction over custody, access, and child support matters; (2) the removal of the amicus curiae appointed to address constitutional issues; (3) the conversion of the Children's Lawyer's role from representation under section 89(3.1) to investigation and reporting under section 112 of the Courts of Justice Act; (4) the scheduling of a Settlement Conference before the trial judge; and (5) procedural orders regarding costs submissions and settlement conference briefs.

This preliminary ruling addresses the admissibility of evidence in affidavits filed in support of competing custody and access motions, and the father's motion for production of the mother's health records.

The court found that the mother's family physician, Dr. Henrikson, is a participant expert whose reports qualify as practitioner's reports admissible under section 52 of the Evidence Act and rule 20.2(15) of the Family Law Rules, despite being unsworn.

The court ordered production of the mother's clinical notes and records concerning her mental health from 2017 to present, subject to strict terms and conditions protecting her privacy, balancing the father's right to fair process against the mother's privacy interests and the children's best interests.

A father brought a motion for temporary custody of two young children and supervised access for the mother, following the mother's admission of alcoholism and evidence of cocaine use during a binge in late April 2020.

The mother brought a cross-motion for sole custody or alternatively, no order at that stage.

The court found that while the case was in its early stages and credibility issues regarding domestic violence allegations remained unresolved, the mother's substance misuse and the concerning circumstances warranted intervention.

The court declined to make a temporary custody order but ordered that the children remain with the father on a temporary without prejudice basis, with the mother having supervised access only.

The court appointed the Children's Lawyer and directed that the ruling be sent to child welfare agencies due to concerns about the mother's parenting capacity and the involvement of a former addictions counsellor in a romantic relationship with the mother.

A child protection motion concerning the placement of a newborn infant in the temporary care and custody of the mother, subject to a supervision order.

The Society sought an order requiring the mother to reside at Rosalie Hall Maternity Home as a condition of the child remaining in her care, or alternatively, that the child be placed in the Society's care.

The mother opposed this requirement and proposed an alternative plan involving residence in the father's apartment with support from paternal family members.

The court found that the mother lacked adequate parenting skills, had an inconsistent history with her older child, and did not have a solid support plan.

The court ordered that the child remain with the mother on condition that she reside at Rosalie Hall, with the alternative being placement in the Society's care.

This is a costs decision following supplementary submissions regarding section 7 child support expenses and costs of multiple motions.

The applicant mother had brought three motions commencing in November 2018, approximately 19 months after the parties settled most issues by Final Minutes of Settlement dated March 29, 2017.

The court found that the mother was unsuccessful on substantially all claims, with only a small credit for certain section 7 expenses.

The respondent father was awarded costs of $7,500 inclusive of HST and disbursements, enforceable through the Family Responsibility Office as an incident of support.

The mother was also ordered to pay $3,257.00 in net section 7 expenses to the father.

This decision addresses a motion by M'Chigeeng First Nation to transfer a family law custody and access case from the Ontario Court of Justice to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

The case involves three Indigenous children whose parents are members of different First Nations.

The mother and M'Chigeeng First Nation asserted section 35 constitutional rights regarding jurisdiction over the children.

The court dismissed the transfer motion, finding that the Ontario Court of Justice has jurisdiction to hear constitutional claims and grant meaningful remedies short of declaratory relief.

The court also addressed costs of prior motions, appointed amicus curiae, and provided directions for trial preparation.

The Society brought a motion to vary a temporary child protection order to permit unsupervised access between the mother and two children (ages 12 and 8).

The children had been placed in the father's care following allegations that the mother and her sisters subjected them to physical discipline during fundamentalist religious practices.

The mother faced criminal charges which were resolved through a peace bond.

The court found sufficient change in circumstances to warrant expanded access, including the resolution of criminal charges, the mother's participation in counselling and parenting courses, removal of the aunt primarily responsible from the home, and the children's expressed desire to see their mother more.

The court ordered a phased approach to access beginning with day visits, progressing to overnight weekend visits, with various protective terms and conditions including restrictions on prayer, contact with the removed aunt, and compliance with COVID-19 protocols.

A youth was charged with attempt to commit murder and aggravated assault following a stabbing incident.

The complainant, a 23-year-old male, was stabbed twice in the neck and face by the accused and another person after being lured to a meeting.

The Crown sought convictions on both counts.

The court found the accused guilty of aggravated assault but acquitted him of attempt to commit murder, finding that while the stabbing was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the specific intent to kill could not be inferred as the only reasonable inference from the evidence.

The court noted credibility concerns regarding the complainant but found substantial corroborating evidence including surveillance video, witness testimony, and medical evidence supporting the assault conviction.

The applicant father sought temporary sole custody of two children, an order that they be returned to Toronto from M'Chigeeng First Nation where the respondent mother had unilaterally taken them, and police enforcement of a prior ex parte order.

The respondent mother sought temporary joint custody with the children remaining on M'Chigeeng First Nation, a restraining order, and challenged the court's jurisdiction based on section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

M'Chigeeng First Nation intervened, asserting exclusive jurisdiction over the children and instructing a local First Nations police service not to enforce the court's order.

The court granted temporary joint custody, ordered the children returned to Toronto, dismissed the mother's request for relocation and restraining order, and declined to order police enforcement or find contempt, giving the mother one final opportunity to comply voluntarily.

A young person (J.J.) was charged with three sexual offences arising from events at a party where the complainant (A.G.), who was heavily intoxicated, was sexually assaulted by multiple males.

The accused was charged with sexual assault with a weapon (hairbrush), sexual assault as a party to the offence, and sexual assault simpliciter.

The court found that the complainant did not consent to any of the sexual touching and that the accused failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain consent.

The court rejected the defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent, finding no air of reality to the defence.

The accused was found guilty on all three counts.

The applicant mother brought three motions seeking to amend her pleadings, set aside a Final Consent Order from March 29, 2017, transfer the case to Superior Court, and obtain increased child support and retroactive section 7 expenses.

The respondent father opposed these motions.

The court dismissed most of the mother's claims, finding that the issues had been settled in the Final Order and that allowing amendments would cause unjust disadvantage to the father.

The court determined that prospective section 7 expenses from March 29, 2017 forward remained outstanding and required DivorceMate calculations to be prepared for final determination.

An ex parte motion for temporary custody and return of two children, brought by the father following the mother's relocation to Manitoulin Island territory of M'Chigeeng First Nation.

The mother and First Nation challenged the court's jurisdiction based on section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, asserting aboriginal and treaty rights, as well as alternative statutory and division of powers arguments.

The court addressed procedural complexities, constitutional questions, party status, and case management directions.

M'Chigeeng First Nation was added as a party.

The court held that it retained statutory jurisdiction pending determination of the section 35 claims and could make interim orders.

The matter was scheduled for full hearing on the merits in February 2020.

Motion to change child support terms in a Separation Agreement dated January 13, 2009.

The primary dispute concerned how post-secondary education expenses for two daughters should be shared between parents, specifically regarding the allocation and use of Registered Education Savings Plans (RESPs).

The mother sought to vary the agreement to allow each parent to benefit solely from the RESP funds they individually contributed post-separation, while the father argued the agreement should be enforced as written, requiring all RESP funds to be used first before apportioning remaining expenses.

The court found material changes in circumstances warranting variation of the agreement and ordered the parents to share undergraduate post-secondary expenses on a 60-40 basis (father-mother), with each parent free to use their own RESP funds as they see fit.

The court deferred determination of graduate degree funding to a future review.

This case concerns custody and access of two young children, Bella Spring Hare (born 2015) and Lionel Taylor Neshkiwe (born 2017), whose parents are members of different First Nations on Manitoulin Island but have lived primarily in Toronto.

The father commenced proceedings in Toronto seeking custody after the mother removed the children to Manitoulin Island.

The mother sought to transfer the proceeding to Gore Bay and challenged the court's jurisdiction based on a First Nation by-law asserting exclusive jurisdiction over child custody matters.

The court granted an ex parte order for the children's return but the mother refused to comply.

The court appointed the Children's Lawyer and directed notice to the Attorneys General of Ontario and Canada due to constitutional questions arising from the conflict between First Nation by-laws and provincial legislation.

A young person was charged with 16 firearms and drug-related offences.

Following a trial in February and March 2019, the court found the accused guilty of four charges, including possession of a loaded firearm.

The accused launched a Charter application alleging violations of sections 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Crown conceded the Charter violations, but the court did not exclude the evidence under section 24(2).

At sentencing, the Crown sought 9-12 months custody followed by probation, while the defence sought an absolute discharge or, alternatively, a conditional discharge.

The court found the case to be exceptional under section 39(1)(d) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, warranting a custodial sentence.

However, considering the accused's circumstances, rehabilitation progress, and mitigating factors, the court imposed a deferred custody and supervision order rather than secure or open custody.

A trial concerning custody, relocation, and access to a two-year-old child with cerebral palsy.

The child's mother sought permission to relocate with the child from Toronto to Edmonton, Alberta, citing isolation, mental health challenges, and family support.

The father opposed the move and sought greater involvement in the child's care and medical decisions.

The court granted joint custody to both parents, denied the mother's relocation request, and ordered regular supported access for the father.

The decision emphasized the importance of the father's involvement given his shared disability with the child and concerns about the mother's management of the child's health care.

This is a Status Review proceeding under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act concerning an 8-year-old child.

Following a trial on the issue of paternal access, the court ordered no access and directed the appointment of an assessor to determine how and when the child should be informed of her father's identity.

The motion addresses the appointment of Dr. Rex Collins as the assessor and concerns serious disclosure failures by the Society and its counsel, who failed to disclose that the mother had told the child about her father and disclosed traumatic information about the mother's past, contrary to the court's findings that the child did not know her father's identity.

The applicant father sought temporary custody of a 13-month-old child and an order requiring vaccination according to Ontario's standard immunization schedule.

The respondent mother opposed custody and sought to implement a delayed vaccination schedule using only aluminum-free vaccines.

The court dismissed competing custody claims but granted the father's motion regarding vaccination.

The court ordered that the child be vaccinated according to the standard Ontario schedule as recommended by the child's physician and supported by expert evidence from a pediatric infectious disease specialist.

The court also established a process for disclosure of health and counselling records between the parties, balancing privacy interests with the need for relevant information in custody proceedings.

This child protection trial concerns access between an eight-year-old child and her biological father.

The father was convicted of serious violent offences against the mother, including human trafficking, sexual assault, and assault causing bodily harm.

Following his release from prison, a Quebec Superior Court ordered supervised access.

However, the mother relocated to Ontario to avoid implementing that order.

The Society sought a finding that the child is in need of protection and a no-access order.

The father engaged in extensive online harassment of the mother and the child, posting videos, images, and commentary that violated non-publication provisions.

The mother suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and depression, and made statements about suicidal ideation if access was ordered.

The court found that access is not in the child's best interests at this time, but ordered comprehensive terms and conditions addressing the parents' online conduct and requiring expert assessment of the child's needs regarding her paternal identity.

A young person was charged with 16 firearms and drug-related offences following a high-risk police takedown in a Toronto parking garage.

The accused challenged the lawfulness of his arrest and the searches conducted on Charter grounds.

The Crown conceded that the arrest was unlawful and violated the accused's section 8 and 9 Charter rights.

The court found that while the police lacked reasonable grounds to arrest, they would have had authority to conduct an investigative detention based on bullet holes discovered in the vehicle.

Applying the section 24(2) analysis, the court admitted the evidence, finding that while the Charter violations were serious, the impact on the accused was mitigated by the availability of investigative detention powers, and society's interest in adjudication on the merits favoured admission.

However, the court found the Crown failed to prove most charges beyond a reasonable doubt, convicting only on one count each under sections 91(1), 92(1), 94(2), and 95(1) of the Criminal Code relating to the firearm found on the accused's person.