Family and Matrimonial Law

The appellant challenged an order extending time for a late equalization claim and permitting a property ownership claim to continue.

The court held that the motion judge erred in treating repeated non-compliance with child support and disclosure orders as irrelevant when granting discretionary relief under the Family Law Act and Family Law Rules.

The court also held that the plain wording of the parties' divorce agreement barred claims to pre-marital property and that no proper expert evidence justified reading in a geographic limitation.

The extension order was set aside, the equalization claim was statute barred, and the ownership claim was dismissed.

The appellant challenged summary judgment dismissing her action for emotional distress and financial deception connected to ownership of the former family home.

The court held that, as against Eberhard Wey, the record raised genuine issues requiring a trial on limitations, res judicata, and abuse of process in light of allegations and evidence of intimate partner violence.

The court found no reversible error in interpreting the 2017 consent order as barring claims against Guenter and Ingrid Wey.

The appeal was therefore allowed in part, with the action against Eberhard remitted for trial and the dismissal against the parents upheld.

The applicant and respondent sought temporary decision-making responsibility orders for their child, primarily concerning vaccination.

The applicant also sought temporary child support.

The court disregarded the joint decision-making terms of their separation agreement, finding them no longer in the child's best interests due to fundamental disagreements on health care.

The court granted the applicant sole decision-making responsibility for health and educational issues, including vaccinations, and ordered the respondent to pay child support of $600 per month, consistent with the original agreement and guidelines.

The court declined to prohibit the father from discussing vaccines with the child but referred the matter to the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision enforcing a Separation Agreement dated October 30, 2012, between the parties.

The appellant sought to set aside the agreement, alleging non-disclosure of assets by the respondent and arguing he did not understand the nature or consequences of the agreement.

The motion judge found no basis to set aside the agreement under section 56(4) of the Family Law Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding that the motion judge properly applied the legal test, made findings open to him, and that the parties were sophisticated individuals who had received independent legal advice.

The court noted that both parties had failed to fully disclose assets, making the appellant's claim disingenuous, and that the agreement itself contained acknowledgments of sufficient disclosure.

This trial decision addresses complex family law issues following a long marriage, including child support, special expenses, and property equalization.

The court determined the appropriate income for child support calculations by imputing a portion of the applicant's employment expenses and excluding a non-recurring RRSP withdrawal.

It also clarified the duration of child support for an adult child pursuing education.

For property equalization, the court ordered the sale of the matrimonial home and a lump-sum payment from the applicant's Canadian Forces pension to the respondent, grossed-up for the respondent's future tax liability.

Claims for past special expenses were dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the Children's Aid Society's internal complaints process.

The applicant alleged the Society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons regarding its handling of video evidence and Polaroid pictures related to her ex-husband's behaviour.

The Board found that the Society followed the statutory process and adequately addressed the video evidence concerns.

However, the Board found the Society failed to hear the applicant and provide reasons regarding the Polaroid pictures, ordering the Society's Internal Complaint Review Panel to reconvene to address this specific issue.

The applicant father filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to hear his service concerns or provide reasons for decisions regarding his child in foster care.

At the scheduled oral hearing, the applicant declined to call witnesses, testify, or provide documentary evidence.

After the Board explained the process and encouraged him to proceed, the applicant explicitly stated he would not proceed and vacated the premises.

The Board concluded the application was abandoned and dismissed it.

The Applicant filed a complaint against the Society under section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act regarding her request for an un-redacted copy of her child welfare file.

The Board found that the Society initially failed to hear the Applicant or provide reasons for its decisions, including incorrectly advising her that she needed a lawyer.

However, the Society subsequently provided reasons and agreed to process the request.

The Board ordered the Society to give the Applicant an opportunity to be heard regarding the costs of file disclosure.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the Halton Children's Aid Society under the Child and Family Services Act, alleging the Society failed to hear her and provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests.

The Society had imposed conditions requiring supervised access and a psychiatric assessment after the mother was briefly hospitalized.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society failed to consult the mother before imposing conditions, failed to properly address her concerns about her baby's health, and failed to assist her when she experienced delays in obtaining the required psychiatric assessment.

The Board ordered the Society to provide a detailed written explanation to the mother regarding these failures.

The Applicant mother filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests.

The Board found that the society met its obligations regarding the reduction of access visits and timely responses from workers.

However, the Board found that the society failed to meet its obligations regarding the disclosure of confidential drug test results to the mother's sister and failing to address concerns about the child's health, specifically a burn scar and the use of cloth diapers.

The society was ordered to provide detailed written reasons on these issues.

The applicant father filed a complaint against the children's aid society, alleging it failed to hear his concerns regarding parental alienation syndrome, gender bias, and a conflict of interest involving his ex-wife, and failed to provide reasons for its decisions.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the society did not meaningfully engage with the applicant's concerns or provide adequate explanations for its actions.

The Board ordered the society to provide a detailed written explanation addressing the applicant's concerns, its conflict of interest policy, and its position on parental alienation syndrome.

The Applicant father filed a complaint against two Children's Aid Societies, alleging they failed to hear his concerns and provide reasons regarding allegations of physical abuse of his children in a foster home.

The Oxford Society, which received the initial disclosure, referred the matter to the Guelph Society as the foster home was in its jurisdiction.

The Board found that the Oxford Society fulfilled its obligations by hearing the Applicant and referring the matter.

However, the Board found that the Guelph Society failed to hear the Applicant, failed to return his calls, and failed to provide detailed reasons for its decision not to verify the abuse allegations despite the children's credible disclosures.

The Board ordered the Guelph Society to provide detailed written reasons and to meet with the Applicant.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the Family and Children's Services of Guelph and Wellington County regarding its handling of her child protection concerns about the child's father.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that while the Society properly handled the internal complaints process and the initial investigation, it failed to meet its statutory obligations during a subsequent investigation.

Specifically, the Society failed to hear the applicant's concerns, involve her in safety planning, or provide reasons for its decisions regarding the child's safety, adult conflict, and her request for a change of worker.

The Board ordered the Society to provide detailed written explanations to the applicant for its decisions.

The applicants, former foster parents of the child, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision to refuse their adoption application and its failure to provide reasons for its decisions.

The Society had removed the child from the applicants' care following child protection investigations that verified the use of unapproved caregivers and corporal punishment.

The Board confirmed the Society's decision to refuse the adoption application, finding that the applicants could not meet the child's physical, mental, and emotional needs.

The Board also found that while the Society provided reasons for its child protection investigation decisions, it failed to provide reasons for the adoption refusal.

The applicant previously succeeded in a complaint against the respondent children's aid society, resulting in an order for the society's internal complaint review panel to reconvene within 30 days.

The parties subsequently wrote to the Board requesting an extension of time to reconvene the panel and seeking clarification on whether the panel could review past practices and whether the confidentiality order permitted sharing the decision with support persons.

The Board issued a supplementary decision extending the timeline, confirming the panel's mandate to review past practices, and revising the confidentiality order to allow the decision to be shared with society personnel, the panel, and the applicant's support person.

The child applicant sought a review of his emergency admission to a secure treatment program at Youthdale Treatment Centres under s. 124(9) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The child had been discharged the previous day after a finding that he did not suffer from a mental disorder, but was re-admitted following a severe deterioration in his behaviour.

The Board rejected the child's argument that the matter was res judicata, finding this was a de novo hearing regarding the new admission.

The Board also ruled that clinical documents and incident reports could not be admitted without their authors available for cross-examination.

On the merits, the Board found that all five criteria for emergency admission under s. 124(2) were met, including that the child suffered from a mental disorder and presented a substantial risk of serious bodily harm to himself.

The application for release was dismissed.

The Applicant, a foster mother, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision to refuse her application to adopt two young sisters who had been in her care.

The Society had matched the children with another family, citing a preference for a two-parent home with employment income rather than foster per diem income.

The Board rescinded the Society's decision, finding that the Applicant had successfully met the children's special needs, provided a stable and loving home, and had sufficient financial means.

The Board ordered that the children be placed for adoption with the Applicant as it was in their best interests.

This is a child protection status review application involving a two-year-old child with a complex history of multiple placements and three separate child protection agencies.

The mother brought a motion for return of the child to her care or increased access.

The paternal great-aunt brought motions for party status and access.

The court dismissed the mother's motions, finding no material change in circumstances warranting modification of the temporary care order.

The court granted the paternal great-aunt party status and access, finding her plan merited consideration as an alternative placement option.

The applicant, a maternal aunt who had briefly acted as a kinship foster parent for her nephew, filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the Society failed to provide her an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons for its decision not to return the child to her care.

The Society challenged the Board's jurisdiction and objected to the applicant's non-legal representative.

The Board permitted the representative to remain, finding he met Law Society criteria.

On jurisdiction, the Board found it lacked authority under s. 68.1(4) 4 because the applicant did not meet the statutory definition of a parent.

However, the Board found it had jurisdiction under s. 68.1(4) 5, concluding that as a kin foster parent, the applicant sought a service and was entitled to reasons for a decision affecting her interests.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent society improperly included her personal information in an affidavit filed in a child protection proceeding involving her brother-in-law.

The society argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction because it had never provided a service to the applicant or her children.

The Board agreed, finding that the inclusion of information from an Office of the Children's Lawyer report in a court affidavit did not constitute a service under the Child and Family Services Act.

Furthermore, the Board noted it lacked jurisdiction because the propriety of the evidence was a matter currently before the court.

The application was dismissed.