Family and Matrimonial Law

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a three-day trial concerning child and spousal support.

Both parties sought costs from the other.

The court found mixed success on the substantive issues, including the imputation of income, retroactive and ongoing child support, section 7 expenses, retroactive and ongoing spousal support, and life insurance.

The court also considered the admissibility of settlement offers exchanged during a settlement conference, noting the conflict between Family Law Rules 17(23) and 18(16) regarding confidentiality.

Ultimately, finding no unreasonable behaviour or bad faith by either party and mixed success at trial, the court ordered no costs payable by either party to the other, emphasizing the principles of reasonableness and proportionality.

A mother sought to garnish a discretionary trust (Henson trust) established for the benefit of the father of her child to enforce unpaid child support arrears exceeding $40,000.

The garnishees, who were the trustees and also the father's siblings, successfully defended the garnishment application on the basis that the discretionary nature of the trust placed all distribution decisions within the trustees' sole discretion, making the trust immune from garnishment.

The trial judge dismissed the mother's application.

This decision addresses the costs consequences of that dismissal, with the court declining to award costs to the successful garnishees despite the presumption in their favour.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that a newborn child (A.G.) was in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act and requesting an order for crown wardship with no access.

The respondent parents had executed a written custody agreement transferring sole custody of the child to a third party (A.G.1) on the day of the child's birth.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues requiring trial on multiple grounds: (1) the identity of the person having charge of the child at the time of apprehension; (2) the validity and legal effect of the custody agreement; (3) whether A.G.1 qualifies as a statutory party to the proceeding; (4) whether the grounds for finding the child in need of protection (abandonment and risk of physical harm) were established; and (5) procedural and temporal issues arising from delays in the proceedings.

The respondent Society brought a motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction to hear an application under section 61 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board determined that it has jurisdiction and will proceed to hear the application.

Reasons for the decision will follow with the decision on the merits.

The Board held a pre-hearing conference regarding the applicant's residential placement.

On consent of the parties, the Board ordered that the applicant be discharged from the residential placement program on June 23, 2014.

The applicant, a former foster mother, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent society's decision to close her foster home and alleged inaccuracies in her file.

The society challenged the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over the foster home closure because the applicant provided services but did not seek or receive them.

The Board also found it lacked jurisdiction over the alleged file inaccuracies because the applicant had not yet exhausted the society's Internal Complaints Review Panel process.

The application was dismissed.

The twelve-year-old applicant child sought a review of his emergency admission to a secure treatment program at Youthdale Treatment Centres.

The child had been diagnosed with major depression and exhibited escalating suicidal ideation, self-harm, and impulsive behaviours.

The Child and Family Services Review Board reviewed the admission under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board found that the child had a mental disorder that grossly impaired his capacity to make reasoned judgments, that he was at serious risk of causing bodily harm to himself, and that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate.

The application for release was denied.

The Applicant grandfather filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society alleging a failure to provide reasons for decisions related to the apprehension of his grandchild.

The Applicant claimed the Society failed to explain why his home was not considered a place of safety, why he and the father were not contacted prior to apprehension, and why protection concerns were not shared.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the complaints, finding that the Society could not share third-party personal information without consent, that the after-hours worker acted properly during the apprehension, and that the Applicant's refusal to collaborate with the Society justified its decision not to assess his home as a place of safety.

A youth applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for release from an emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The Board reviewed the criteria under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board found that the youth had a mental disorder, had attempted to cause serious bodily harm to herself, and that no less restrictive method of providing treatment was appropriate given her escalating suicidal behaviours.

The application for release was denied.

The applicant filed a complaint against the children's aid society regarding service obligations, specifically concerning supervised access, his inability to reside with his children, the children's alleged fear of workers, and alleged racism by an intake worker.

The review board found that the society had provided the applicant with sufficient opportunities to be heard and adequate reasons for its decisions, which were based on concerns about his mental health and recent hospital admission.

The board found no evidence of racism and dismissed the complaint.

The respondent society brought a motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the applicant's complaint because the issues were before the court in an ongoing child protection proceeding.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that while the court determines the child protection issues, the Board retains jurisdiction over service-related complaints regarding the society's statutory obligation to provide reasons for its decisions.

The applicants, who were foster parents, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent Society failed to provide reasons for removing a foster child from their care.

The Board held a hearing to determine if it had jurisdiction.

The Board found that foster parents do not fall within the definition of a parent and were not receiving a 'service' from the Society, as there was no child protection investigation into their conduct.

Consequently, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction and closed the file.

The Applicants, the grandfather and uncle of a child, filed an application alleging the Children's Aid Society failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting their interests under s. 68.1(4) 5 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board found that while the Society adequately explained a delay in providing DNA test results, it failed to provide reasons for several other significant decisions.

These included denying the uncle access to the child, contacting hospitals and landlords without notice, and attending the Applicants' home unannounced.

The application was granted in part, and the Society was ordered to provide detailed written explanations for its decisions.

The applicants, former foster parents, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the Children's Aid Society failed to provide reasons for decisions regarding a young woman residing with them and maintained inaccurate documents in their file.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Board found that the complaint regarding file inaccuracies required the applicants to first exhaust the Society's internal complaints process.

Regarding the young woman, the Board determined the applicants were not seeking or receiving services for themselves, as they had no parental relationship with the adult woman who was the actual recipient of the Society's services.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the Dufferin Child and Family Services regarding its failure to hear her concerns and provide reasons for decisions affecting her children.

The Society brought a motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because the children were the subject of an ongoing protection application before the court.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to review the Society's communication and responsiveness to the applicant, as these were not issues before the court.

However, the Board declined jurisdiction over complaints regarding inaccurate file documentation, as those matters involved evidence relevant to the court proceeding.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the children's aid society, alleging it failed to provide her with an opportunity to be heard about her service concerns and failed to give reasons for its decisions affecting her interests regarding the safety of her children in their father's care.

The society challenged the tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing the matters were before the family court.

The tribunal found it had jurisdiction, as the complaint concerned the society's service delivery, not the custody dispute.

The tribunal allowed the application, finding the society failed to adequately communicate with the applicant, hear her concerns, or provide reasons for its decisions, and ordered the society to provide written responses and reasons.

The Applicant father filed a service complaint against the Children's Aid Society, alleging it failed to hear his concerns regarding his daughter's safety and failed to provide reasons for its decisions.

His primary concern was the Society's decision to allow the child's mother's fiancé to reside in the home despite past abusive behaviour.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society had engaged in lengthy discussions with the Applicant, investigated the incidents, and imposed conditions on the mother and fiancé.

The Board concluded the Society had heard the Applicant's concerns and provided reasons for its decisions, and dismissed the application.

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

The admission was sought due to her history of running away, high-risk behaviours, and a recent brief hospitalization.

The Board found that the evidence, including testimony from the admitting psychiatrist, did not establish that the child had a mental disorder that grossly impaired her capacity to make reasoned judgments at the time of admission.

Because the first statutory criterion under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act was not met, the Board ordered the child's release.

The 12-year-old applicant child applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review her emergency admission to a secure treatment program at Youthdale Treatment Centres.

The Board excluded hearsay medical documents authored by the admitting psychiatrist, citing procedural fairness.

Upon reviewing the evidence, the Board found that Youthdale failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the child had a mental disorder at the time of admission, as required by s. 124(2)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board concluded the child's behaviours were an expected reaction to recent trauma and apprehension, rather than a substantial disorder of emotional processes.

The application was granted and the child was released.

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

The Board considered whether the child met the statutory criteria for admission under the Child and Family Services Act, specifically whether she had a 'mental disorder' as defined by the Act.

Based on the evidence of the admitting psychiatrist, the Board found that the child's level of impairment was moderate and did not meet the threshold of a gross impairment of capacity to make reasoned judgments.

The Board ordered the child's release.