Family and Matrimonial Law

This endorsement addresses costs following a child protection trial where the primary dispute was between paternal (A.H. and B.H.) and maternal (D.T. and A.T.) grandparents for custody of a child, M. The paternal grandparents, who were ultimately granted deemed custody, sought costs against the maternal grandparents.

The court found that while the maternal grandparents had a legitimate case, their conduct, including obstructing access and breaching court orders, was unreasonable and unduly prolonged the proceedings.

Applying principles that allow for costs against parents/parties in child protection cases for unreasonable conduct, the court awarded $3,000 in costs to the paternal grandparents to sanction the maternal grandparents' behaviour and partially indemnify the successful litigants.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support.

The parties disputed the separation date, the applicant's employment status (fired vs. quit), and the respondent's true income.

The court found the applicant established a prima facie case for entitlement, noting her financial disadvantage post-separation and the prior "homemade" interim support arrangement.

The court imputed income to the respondent based on corporate expenses and benefits, finding his reported salary did not reflect his true financial benefit.

Interim spousal support was ordered for the applicant.

This family law trial addressed financial issues including child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The court determined the value of the matrimonial home, the respondent's business interests (ABC Insurance Brokers Ltd. and Dagmar Management Group Ltd.), personal property, and a disputed loan from the respondent's father, which was discounted to zero.

The court imputed income to both parties for support purposes, finding the applicant intentionally under-employed due to insufficient English language upgrading efforts, and imputed rental income to the respondent.

Child support and spousal support were ordered, with spousal support being compensatory and non-compensatory, set at mid-range for a duration of nine years post-separation.

The applicant filed a complaint against the children's aid society regarding its handling of her mental health issues, a community caregiver investigation that led to the suspension of her driver's license, and her unemployment.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding that the society met its statutory obligations under the Child and Family Services Act to hear the applicant's concerns and provide reasons for its decisions at each step of its involvement.

The child applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review his emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The child had a history of escalating dangerous behaviours, including self-harm, cutting, and climbing to dangerous heights at night.

The Board applied the five criteria under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act and found that the child had a mental disorder that caused a substantial threat of serious bodily harm to himself.

The Board concluded that the secure treatment program would be effective in preventing further harm, that appropriate treatment was available, and that no less restrictive method was appropriate.

The child's application for release was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent society failed to respond to his complaint in a timely manner and failed to hear his concerns regarding the unauthorized access of his confidential adoption file by his former spouse, a society employee.

The Board found that the society breached its obligations under the Child and Family Services Act by failing to respond to the complaint within the required timeframe and by failing to meaningfully investigate and communicate with the applicant regarding the privacy breach.

The application was allowed in part, though no further orders were necessary as the society validated the applicant's allegations during the hearing.

The applicants filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding an investigation conducted by the respondent children's aid society.

The Board found that while the applicants did receive a child welfare service in the form of an investigation, it lacked jurisdiction to hear the application.

Because the applicants had commenced a civil action in the Superior Court of Justice raising the same issues regarding the society's conduct during the investigation, the matter was 'before the court' under section 68.1(8) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The applicant grandmother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to provide reasons for its decisions regarding her requests for assistance in re-uniting with her granddaughter.

The society brought a motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the applicant was merely a spokesperson for the child's mother and had not sought or received a service in her own right.

The Board dismissed the society's motion, finding that the applicant had sought and received a child welfare service separate from her advocacy for the mother, and that she had a direct interest in her family bond with her granddaughter that was affected by the society's decisions.

The applicants, who were foster parents to a 16-month-old child, applied to adopt him.

The Children's Aid Society refused the application due to concerns about the applicants' financial stability and increasing debt.

The applicants applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the refusal.

The Board first determined it had jurisdiction to hear the review even though the child was not yet a Crown ward.

On the merits, the Board found that while the applicants provided excellent care, their financial instability and lack of budgeting posed a risk to the child's future security.

The Board confirmed the Society's decision to refuse the adoption application.

The applicant child applied for a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program under section 124(9) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board found that the respondent failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the child had a mental disorder at the time of admission, as required by section 124(2)(a).

The respondent did not provide medical evidence or testimony from the admitting psychiatrist, and the child's behavioural issues, including persistent absences without leave, did not demonstrate a gross impairment of her capacity to make reasoned judgments.

The Board ordered the child's release.

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

The Board reviewed the evidence of the child's escalating behaviours, including threats of self-harm, threats to others, substance abuse, and repeated AWOLs from less restrictive placements.

The Board found that the child had a mental disorder and met all five criteria for admission under section 124(2) of the Act.

The application for release was dismissed.

The Applicant mother filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the Children's Aid Society, alleging the Society failed to hear her service concerns, failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests, and failed to comply with internal complaint procedures regarding her 16-year-old daughter.

The Board dismissed the complaints regarding the internal complaints process, finding the Society complied with the legislation.

However, the Board found that the Society failed to hear the Applicant or provide reasons for its decisions regarding the daughter's placement, the service plan, the suspension of the child tax credit, a crisis call, and the cancellation of counselling services.

The Board ordered the Society to provide detailed written explanations to the Applicant for these decisions.

The Applicant, a 16-year-old crown ward, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of her residential placement at a facility located over three hours from her home community.

The Applicant sought to be moved closer to her family and supports to assist her transition to independence.

The Children's Aid Society argued she needed to remain at the current facility to stabilize.

The Board found that the current placement was not in the Applicant's best interests due to the distance from her family, her special needs, and the negative environment at the facility.

The Board ordered the Applicant discharged from the current placement and moved to a placement closer to her family, preferably a treatment foster home.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society under section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, alleging the Society failed to hear her service concerns and failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests.

The complaints related to a letter the Society sent to the court and its alleged failure to forward information regarding the father to the court and police.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society failed to communicate genuinely with the applicant between April and mid-June 2012 regarding the court letter, but fulfilled its obligations once direct communication resumed.

The Board dismissed the complaint regarding the forwarding of documents, finding the Society had no obligation to do so, though it noted the Society should have communicated its reasons more clearly.

The Applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the Society failed to hear him and failed to provide reasons regarding a child protection investigation involving his son.

The Society refused to participate in the hearing on the merits.

The Board found that the Society failed to meet its obligations under the Child and Family Services Act by concluding the investigation without notifying or interviewing the Applicant, and by failing to provide meaningful reasons for its decisions.

The Board ordered the Society to provide a detailed written explanation to the Applicant.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the respondent society, alleging it failed to follow the legislated internal complaints review procedure and failed to hear him or provide reasons regarding an investigation into his family.

The Board found that the applicant, as a parent under the Act, had a right to be heard and to receive reasons for decisions affecting his interests.

The Board concluded that the society failed to comply with the statutory complaints process, failed to hear the applicant's concerns about the referral source, and failed to provide adequate reasons for its decisions.

The society was ordered to proceed with the complaint according to the legislation and provide a detailed written explanation of its investigation.

The 16-year-old applicant child, who was in the care of a Children's Aid Society, applied for a review of his emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The child had a complex mental disorder, including a psychotic disorder and developmental disorder, and had exhibited aggressive behaviour, severe withdrawal, and an inability to adhere to medication.

The Board found that all five criteria for emergency admission under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act were met.

The Board concluded that the child posed a substantial threat of serious bodily harm to himself, that the secure treatment program would be effective and appropriate, and that no less restrictive method of providing treatment was appropriate.

The application for release was dismissed.

The applicants, the paternal grandfather and step-grandmother of a child taken into care, filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society for failing to provide reasons for not considering them as a kinship placement.

The Society challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the applicants were not parents or persons seeking services.

The Board found it had jurisdiction because assessing a kin placement is a service under the Child and Family Services Act, and the decision affected the applicants' interests.

On the merits, the Board found the Society failed to provide timely explanations to the applicants about why they were not considered for kinship placement, noting the Society's apology during the hearing.

In a family law proceeding following a motion addressing spousal support, the respondent wife sought costs from the commencement of the proceeding after obtaining a consent order for ongoing support.

The court held that under Rule 24(10) of the Family Law Rules, costs must generally be sought and determined promptly after each step in the proceeding.

Relying on appellate authority, the court found that costs relating to earlier steps where no costs were requested or reserved could not later be claimed.

The wife was therefore limited to seeking costs for the motion heard on December 9, 2011.

Given her success on the support issue and an unaccepted offer to settle that was substantially matched by the result, the court awarded full indemnity costs for the motion.

On an interim family law motion, the court addressed issues of spousal support, child support, corporate control, property taxes, and sale of the matrimonial home following separation.

The respondent sought imputation of income to the applicant and the sale of the matrimonial home, while the applicant sought support at the high range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and joint signing authority over a jointly owned company.

The court declined to order the sale of the matrimonial home, finding the request premature given unresolved equalization issues and the presence of other assets.

The court set interim child and spousal support based on the respondent’s income and declined to impute income to the applicant while she pursued education to become self-supporting.

The applicant was granted joint signing authority on the company accounts.