Family and Matrimonial Law

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted leave for the former trial solicitor of Michael Scott De Longte to intervene in the appeal, limited to the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel.

The court found the solicitor’s participation necessary to complete the record and assist in the proper adjudication of the issue, as the allegations of ineffective assistance were central to the appeal and mirrored in a related professional negligence action.

The court also declared that solicitor-client privilege had been waived by Mr. De Longte and set out a schedule for the exchange and filing of fresh evidence, cross-examinations, and facta.

No costs were awarded on the motion.

The Respondent brought a motion to strike the Applicant's Motion to Change (MTC) due to the Applicant's long-standing non-compliance with multiple court orders, including significant arrears in child and spousal support ($90,868.06) and an unpaid costs award ($159,533.73) from a previous trial.

The Applicant, who had declared bankruptcy but was undischarged, also failed to provide adequate disclosure regarding his employment changes.

The court applied the three-step test for striking pleadings and found the Applicant's conduct to be egregious and exceptional, demonstrating a blatant disregard for court orders and a "scorched earth" litigation approach.

The court granted the Respondent's motion, striking the Applicant's MTC in its entirety and imposing strict conditions for any future motions, emphasizing the need for the Applicant to demonstrate genuine compliance with existing orders and good faith.

The applicant sought an order for the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home under the Partition Act and Family Law Act due to significant mortgage and property tax arrears, and a civil action initiated by the bank.

The respondent opposed the sale, arguing it was premature and would prejudice her family law claims, including spousal support and equalization.

The court ordered the immediate sale of the matrimonial home, finding the sale inevitable given the financial circumstances and the bank's actions, and that delaying it would cause further hardship.

The court also set terms for the sale process.

The applicant father sought an order to maintain the children's permanent residence in Schomberg, Ontario, following a unilateral move from Etobicoke.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion for the children's return to Toronto, arguing the move was a relocation that significantly impacted her parenting time and decision-making authority.

The court found compelling circumstances for the father's move due to housing necessity and financial hardship.

Despite the father's non-compliance with relocation notice requirements and unilateral decision-making regarding school enrollment, the court permitted the temporary relocation, prioritizing the children's need for stable housing.

The mother's parenting time was adjusted to compensate for the loss of mid-week overnight visits.

The court emphasized that the father's conduct would be scrutinized at trial.

The plaintiff sought monetary relief based on unjust enrichment arising from a joint family venture with the defendant, David Brathwaite, and his corporations.

The court found that a joint family venture existed and the plaintiff's claim was not statute-barred due to ongoing reconciliation efforts.

However, the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove a disproportionate accumulation of wealth by the defendant linked to her contributions, or to quantify the alleged enrichment and deprivation.

Consequently, the plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment was dismissed, as was the defendant's counterclaim.

This motion concerned a justification hearing under section 51(2) of the Child and Family Services Act regarding a temporary order placing two children, R.M. and S.M., in the care of Valoris.

The respondent mother sought to modify the temporary order to return S.M. to her care, subject to Valoris's supervision.

The court found that Valoris met its burden under section 51(3) to demonstrate reasonable grounds to believe S.M. would likely suffer harm if returned to the mother's care, and that supervision alone would be insufficient.

Concerns included the mother's inability to address S.M.'s special needs (hygiene, school absenteeism), her volatile relationship with a partner with a history of violence, and the physical discipline of R.M. The motion to return S.M. was dismissed, and the children were ordered to remain in foster care.

The Child and Family Services Review Board issued an interim decision regarding a residential placement review, addressing motions on jurisdiction and the disclosure of Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) records.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to review the child welfare placement despite a purported bail condition.

The Board also provided guidance and suggested wording for future motions to the Youth Court to obtain broader access to YCJA records without improperly delegating screening to the Board.

The Society brought a pre-hearing motion seeking access to Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) assessments for a residential placement review before the Child and Family Services Review Board.

The Youth Court had ordered the records released subject to a further screening order by the Board under the Wagg framework.

The Board held that delegating the screening process to the Board was inappropriate, as the Youth Court has exclusive jurisdiction and expertise under the YCJA to balance privacy and public interest concerns.

However, given the Youth Court's delegation in this specific case, the Board ordered the records released for the hearing subject to strict confidentiality conditions.

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

The facility bore the burden of proving that all five criteria under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act were met.

The Board found that while the child had a mental disorder, the facility failed to prove that she had caused or threatened serious bodily harm, or that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate.

The Board granted the application and ordered the child's release.

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

The Board found that while the child had a mental disorder, she had not made a substantial threat to cause serious bodily harm to herself or others, and that less restrictive methods of providing treatment had not been fully explored.

The Board ordered the child's release.

The Applicant alleged that the Society failed to comply with a previous Board order requiring it to explain why it did not follow confidentiality policies when sharing documents.

The Board found that the Society's responses did not provide the detailed explanation ordered, but confirmed that no one had turned their mind to the policies at the time.

Given the limits on its enforcement powers under section 68 of the Child and Family Services Act, the Board declined to probe the issue further.

The Board amended its Confidentiality Order to permit the Applicant to use the Board's decisions and refer to information from the proceedings in a civil action against the Society.

The applicant applied for a review of her placement under section 36(1) of the Child and Family Services Act.

During the hearing, a witness testified that a psychiatrist had dictated a consulting note for the applicant's file.

The Child and Family Services Review Board ordered the witness to provide a copy of the consulting note to the society, and for the society to produce it to the Board and the applicant's counsel.

The applicants brought an application to the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent Society failed to provide reasons for its decision regarding an Intake Worker's discussion with a community speech pathologist.

The applicants were concerned about a breach of privacy regarding the mother's health and the Society's involvement with their younger child.

The Board found that the Society failed to meet its statutory obligation to provide meaningful explanations for its decisions.

The Board ordered the Society to provide a detailed written response addressing the reasons for the discussion and the applicants' privacy concerns.

The applicants, parents of a child in temporary wardship, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the Toronto Children's Aid Society.

The applicants alleged that the Society failed to hear their concerns and provide reasons for its decision to stop community access visits.

The Society had curtailed the visits citing new information about the parents' criminal records and alleged gang affiliation.

The Board found that while the Society heard the applicants' concerns, it failed to provide adequate reasons for its decisions regarding the specific criminal convictions considered, the basis for the gang affiliation allegation, the rejection of a risk-mitigating proposal, and the role of medical marijuana use.

The Board ordered the Society to meet with the applicants and provide detailed written reasons on these four issues.

The applicant grandparents sought a review of a decision by the Society's Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP) regarding the care of their grandchildren.

They alleged the Society failed to properly act on information about the mother's mental health and her partner's proximity to the children, and that the Society did not follow the legislated complaints process.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that while the Society failed to meet statutory timelines and improperly included the Executive Director on the ICRP, the applicants were fully heard and provided with meaningful reasons.

The application was dismissed with no orders made regarding the procedural breaches, as they caused no prejudice.

The 14-year-old applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review his emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The admission was sought due to his violent and aggressive behaviour at home, which led to his apprehension by the Children's Aid Society.

The Board found that while the applicant had a mental disorder and posed a risk of harm, the criterion requiring that no less restrictive method of treatment be appropriate was not met.

The applicant's behaviour had stabilized in an open custody facility prior to admission, and alternative non-secure treatment options had not been adequately explored.

The Board ordered the applicant's release.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the society failed to listen to her concerns and provide reasons for decisions regarding a reintegration plan for her common-law partner.

The Board found that the society failed to communicate effectively, changed its position on the reintegration plan without consulting the applicant, and did not provide timely reasons for its decisions.

The Board concluded that the society breached its obligations under section 2(2)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Applicant, a 16-year-old youth in care, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of his residential placement at a structured facility.

The Society argued the facility was necessary due to his history and need for structure.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to hear the matter, as the placement was a child welfare placement despite the youth's probation order.

The Board concluded that the facility's restrictive rules, use of restraints, and lack of community integration were no longer in the youth's best interests.

The Board ordered the Applicant discharged from the facility and directed the Society to find a less restrictive placement.

The child applied for a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The Board considered whether the criteria under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act were met, specifically whether the child had a mental disorder.

The Board found no medical evidence of a mental disorder and concluded the child's behaviour was indicative of rebelliousness and anger rather than a substantial disorder of emotional processes.

The Board ordered the child's release.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the Children's Aid Society, alleging a failure to provide an opportunity to be heard and reasons for decisions regarding access visitation, comments made by a worker, and a request for a new worker.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over the access and comments complaints, as they were either decided by the court or not previously raised with the Society.

However, the Board found it had jurisdiction over the request for a new worker.

On the merits, the Board held that the Society failed to comply with its statutory obligations to hear the applicant's concerns and provide reasons for its decision not to change the worker, ordering the Society to provide written reasons.