Family and Matrimonial Law

The applicants, a mother and child, filed an application against the children's aid society alleging it failed to provide reasons for closing a 2022 child protection investigation without implementing safeguards, and failed to address the child's rights under the Charter and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Board found that the society had provided adequate reasons for its decisions during the investigation and upon file closure.

The Board also determined that the mother had not explicitly raised Charter or Convention rights, and that the society had provided reasons for its responses to third-party referrals.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a homestay caregiver, filed an application alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to provide reasons for its decision to verify allegations of inadequate supervision and neglect regarding students in her care.

The respondent had made multiple unsuccessful attempts to contact the applicant during the investigation.

After the investigation concluded, the respondent explained the process, findings, and reasons for the verification decision to the applicant through multiple phone calls with an interpreter.

The tribunal found that the respondent provided meaningful reasons for its decision and dismissed the application.

The applicant mother filed an application under s. 120 of the CYFSA alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests.

The CFSRB dismissed allegations outside its jurisdiction, including those related to family court orders, privacy breaches, and a perceived multi-party conspiracy.

For the remaining issues, the CFSRB found that the respondent had adequately heard the applicant's concerns through multiple in-person meetings and correspondence, and had provided meaningful written reasons explaining the outcomes of its child protection investigations.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, raising nine complaints regarding a child protection investigation conducted by the respondent agency.

The Board found that the agency failed to provide reasons for the investigation exceeding 45 days, failed to explain the verification decision, and failed to provide reasons for retracting its intention to commence a protection application.

The remaining complaints were dismissed, either because the agency had acted reasonably, the applicant had declined opportunities to meet, or the Board lacked jurisdiction.

The Board ordered the agency to provide written reasons and outcomes to the applicant for the substantiated complaints.

The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent Children's Aid Society's handling of child protection investigations and safety plans.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were before the family court in a parenting time dispute.

The Board found that the applicant's complaints about the Society's failure to communicate, provide reasons, and address safety concerns were separate and different from the substantive issues before the family court.

The Board ruled it had jurisdiction to hear the 11 specific complaints and ordered the application to proceed to a hearing.

The applicant filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

After asking how to withdraw the application, the applicant failed to respond to the Board's directions to confirm the withdrawal or provide written particulars.

The Board concluded that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled pre-hearing videoconference and did not respond to a subsequent direction from the Board to advise whether she wished to proceed.

Consequently, the Board found that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.

The applicant sought to have her hearing proceed by videoconference, arguing it would be more accessible and allow for better emotional expression.

The respondent children's aid society requested a written hearing, noting the applicant's demonstrated ability to communicate in writing and the risk of an oral hearing expanding beyond the tribunal's jurisdiction.

The adjudicator ordered a written hearing, finding the applicant could adequately present her case in writing and that a written format would be more efficient given the narrow jurisdictional focus of the proceeding.

The applicant father filed a complaint against the children's aid society under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging the society failed to hear his concerns and provide reasons regarding its investigation into alleged physical abuse of his child by school staff.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the complaints relating to the right to be heard, finding the society's worker communicated with the applicant and considered his input.

However, the Board upheld the complaint regarding the right to reasons, finding the society failed to provide a meaningful explanation of its investigation process and how it concluded the abuse was not verified.

The society was ordered to provide a detailed explanatory letter.

The respondent Children's Aid Society requested that the application be dismissed due to the applicant's failure to file a witness list and summary of proposed testimony.

The applicant also failed to respond to a Board direction by the specified deadline, but later contacted the Board to express dissatisfaction without indicating an intention to withdraw.

The Board found the application was not abandoned and ordered the hearing to proceed, but restricted the applicant from calling any witnesses other than herself and limited her evidence to matters previously raised in writing.

The applicant, a foster and prospective adoptive parent, filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The respondent children's aid society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicant had not sought or received services.

The Board found that while the applicant did not receive services as a foster parent, she did seek and receive services as a prospective adoptive parent with an open and approved adoption file.

Furthermore, the respondent had already deemed the complaint eligible for its Internal Complaints Review Panel, thereby acknowledging the applicant sought or received a service.

The Board concluded it had jurisdiction to review the application regarding adoption services.

The applicant father filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to hear his concerns regarding their handling of his son's suicidal ideation and related investigations.

The applicant raised five specific issues, including the respondent's failure to inform him of the suicidal ideation, dismissing his evidence, blaming him without investigation, discouraging court action, and a worker's inappropriate use of the word 'Nazi'.

The Board reviewed the evidence and found that the respondent had actively listened to, discussed, and addressed the applicant's concerns in all instances, even though the applicant disagreed with the respondent's conclusions.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiff sought the return of an engagement ring and $40,000 given to the defendant during their engagement, intended for wedding planning and student debt.

The court found the engagement terminated due to the defendant's conduct and that the funds were not outright gifts.

The court ordered the return of the engagement ring and $14,000, representing unspent wedding funds and the student debt payment.

Claims by the defendants for losses were dismissed due to insufficient evidence and improper pleading.

The action against the second defendant (mother) was dismissed.

The court held a voir dire to determine the testimonial capacity of the applicant, Barbara Cohen, who suffers from mild dementia.

The respondents argued she had capacity, while her counsel argued she lacked it.

Based on expert reports from two geriatric specialists (Dr. Joel Sadavoy and Dr. Richard Shulman) and the court's own questioning of Barbara, the court found that the applicant lacked the capacity to testify due to inconsistent memory, difficulty communicating complex ideas, and potential for increased anxiety under cross-examination.

The court ruled that her previous questioning transcripts would be filed instead of compelling her live testimony.

The trial addressed Sebastian's request for prospective parenting time with his child, O., following his release from a two-year robbery sentence, and child support issues, including arrears and income imputation while incarcerated.

The court ordered a gradual, supervised parenting time regime for Sebastian, contingent on mental health evaluation, drug testing, and reconciliation counselling, acknowledging both parents' contributions to the estrangement.

It also retroactively adjusted child support, finding Sebastian had overpaid, and imputed a nominal income during incarceration, increasing upon release.

This decision addresses costs for two prior motions in a family law matter.

The court found that success was divided on both the initial motions concerning income, child, and spousal support, and a subsequent motion to correct mathematical errors.

Neither party's offer to settle met the criteria for special costs under the Family Law Rules.

The court also considered the parties' conduct, noting that both contributed to the complexity of the litigation.

Ultimately, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs for the motions.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for parenting time of the parties' two young children.

The respondent father opposed the urgency and proposed an alternative parenting schedule.

The court found the matter was not urgent, as the children were safe with the father and the mother had not initiated a formal family law application.

Considering the children's best interests, including stability, history of care, and parental cooperation, the court adopted a modified version of the father's proposed schedule, granting the mother parenting time from Sunday evening to Thursday morning, and the father from Thursday morning to Sunday evening, to maintain continuity of care and equitable time.

The applicant mother sought to vary a child support order due to a material change in circumstances, specifically a reduction in her income.

The respondent father opposed a full retroactive reduction and sought an order for section 7 expenses.

The court reduced the mother's prospective child support obligation from $507/month to $358/month, effective February 1, 2023, based on her 2021 income.

A retroactive adjustment to $358/month was granted for the period from September 22, 2022 (date of effective notice) to March 1, 2023.

The court declined further retroactive adjustments for the period before May 31, 2021, due to insufficient evidence.

The mother was also ordered to pay her proportionate share (36%) of section 7 expenses, including $1751 for the child's orthodontic treatment, payable at $150/month.

The Children's Aid Society sought an order to place one child, B.L., in the temporary care of kin pending trial.

The parents brought a cross-motion to return all five children to their temporary care under a supervision order.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the kin placement approval for B.L. and the parents' recent housing and service engagement for the other children.

The court granted the Society's motion for B.L., placing him with kin, finding it in his best interests and that he could not be returned to parents.

The parents' cross-motion for the four youngest children was adjourned to allow them more time to demonstrate sustained progress in addressing mental health, addiction, and parenting concerns.

The respondent mother brought an interim motion seeking sole custody of the parties’ two children along with child and spousal support.

The court declined to grant interim sole custody, finding no evidence that the existing de facto joint custody arrangement negatively affected the children’s interests.

However, the court ordered the father to pay combined child and spousal support based on imputed incomes of $60,000 for the father and $12,000 for the mother, along with retroactive support and proportional payment of section 7 expenses.

Standard decision‑making and communication clauses were imposed to improve parental cooperation and guide joint decision‑making pending trial.