Anne-Marie Langan

The applicant requested that her human rights application be consolidated with two other applications filed by former employees against the same respondents.

The applicant argued that all three applications involved allegations of a poisoned work environment and that consolidation would avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

The Tribunal applied the Lattey factors and denied the request, finding that the applications raised distinct factual and legal issues, including different grounds of discrimination and separate factual matrices, which outweighed the inconvenience of separate hearings.

Following a four‑day family law trial concerning custody and access to a child, the court determined the successful party's entitlement to costs.

The applicant had been substantially successful at trial and sought recovery of legal costs under Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules.

The court considered the parties’ conduct, settlement offers, and the factors under Rule 24(11), noting the absence of bad faith and the financial limitations of the parties.

While the applicant claimed approximately $18,529, the court fixed costs at a reduced amount.

The respondents were ordered jointly and severally to pay the applicant $10,000 in costs.

A biological father sought custody of his three‑year‑old child, who had primarily been raised by the child’s great‑grandmother and later jointly cared for by extended relatives.

The mother supported the relatives’ custody claim and acknowledged she was presently unable to parent due to substance abuse and instability.

The court applied the best interests of the child analysis under s. 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, considering the child’s established bonds with caregivers, the father’s relationship with the child, and competing long‑term care plans.

Independent assessments from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer and a home study in Iowa supported the father’s parenting capacity and proposed family environment.

Despite the stability of the relatives’ current arrangement, the court held that the child’s long‑term interests favored placement with the biological father and ordered that the child relocate to live with him in Iowa, with structured ongoing contact for the Canadian caregivers.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking Crown wardship of four children who had been in care for over two years.

The mother and her common-law partner opposed the motion, arguing that they had made progress and could call witnesses to support their case.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a triable issue existed and emphasizing the need for caution before making a Crown wardship order.