Alicia Laura Tymec

The Office of the Children's Lawyer, acting for two young children in extended society care, brought a motion to withdraw an openness application previously filed on their behalf.

The withdrawal was sought due to the father's aggressive and threatening behaviour towards society workers and the adoptive parents' resulting fear.

The court applied factors relevant to withdrawing protection applications and granted the motion, noting the parents were access recipients without an independent right to seek openness, and that withdrawal was in the children's best interests.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to provisionally strike the defendants' jury notices in a motor vehicle accident claim due to anticipated trial delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court noted the significant backlog of civil jury trials in Windsor and the prejudice the plaintiffs would suffer from further delay, particularly regarding the statutory reduction of pre-trial income loss.

The court granted the motion, ordering the matter to proceed as a judge-alone trial unless civil jury trials resume in Windsor by the scheduled trial date.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after fracturing her ankle when she stepped onto a gravel strip while attempting to open the door of her newly purchased van at a dealership.

The respondent denied the claim on the basis that the incident did not meet the definition of an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found that while the purpose test was met, the causation test was not.

The Tribunal concluded that the unmarked gravel construction area was an intervening cause and the dominant feature of the incident, not the use or operation of the vehicle.

The application for accident benefits was dismissed.

This endorsement addresses two openness applications brought by siblings under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (CYFSA).

The applications sought to formalize access between four siblings, two of whom were in extended society care and on adoption probation, and two others who were also in extended society care but not yet legally free for adoption due to an outstanding appeal.

The court outlined the statutory pathway for openness orders, particularly concerning the impact of the sequence of extended care orders on children's legal rights and access.

The applications proceeded on consent, with the potential adoptive parents agreeing to the proposed openness order.

The court found it was in the children's best interests to make the final openness order, ensuring the continuation of beneficial sibling relationships.

Appellants appealed the motion judge's refusal to enforce a settlement agreement reached at a pre-trial conference in a motor vehicle accident action.

The motion judge found that counsel's description of witnesses as "independent" amounted to civil fraud because the witnesses' son lived across the street from the plaintiffs.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that counsel's statement was an opinion with a reasonable basis made in good faith, not a false statement of fact.

The court emphasized that findings of civil fraud against counsel could have devastating reputational consequences and could chill resolute advocacy.

The court also found that the defendant failed to exercise due diligence in investigating the witnesses' connection to the plaintiffs.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion to enforce a settlement in a motor vehicle accident claim, the court determined the costs of the motion.

The defendant sought full indemnity costs of $122,826.71, arguing the plaintiffs' counsel made misleading statements during a pretrial that led to the repudiated settlement.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs fixed at $100,000 to the defendant.

The court declined to order costs personally against the plaintiffs' counsel under Rule 57.07(1), finding that while counsel's representations led to the settlement, the costs of the motion were caused by the plaintiffs' tactical decision to seek enforcement rather than proceed to trial.