Brian W. Abrams

The Society brought a motion for the child to remain in its interim care and custody pending the resolution of a Status Review Application.

The child had been apprehended due to concerns regarding lack of weight gain and developmental delays.

A parenting capacity assessment concluded that the parents, who both functioned in the borderline intellectual range, lacked the necessary skills and insight to address the child's specialized needs, placing the child at moderate-high risk of maltreatment or maladaptation.

The court found that the Society met its burden and ordered the child to remain in the interim care and custody of the Society.

The United States sought the extradition of the applicant for child pornography offences.

The applicant brought a Charter application to exclude evidence seized during a search of his residence by Canadian police.

The court found that the search warrant was invalid as the information to obtain lacked reasonable grounds to believe evidence would be found at the new address.

Furthermore, the manner of the search was highly unreasonable, involving an unnecessary dynamic entry with flash grenades, gratuitous damage to the home, and the arbitrary detention and mistreatment of the occupants, including the applicant.

The court concluded that the police conduct flagrantly breached sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded all evidence seized during the search under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The defendant mortgagee brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff mortgagor’s action alleging an improvident power of sale of farm property, or alternatively for security for costs.

The plaintiff argued that the mortgagee failed to take reasonable precautions to obtain true market value and relied on outdated appraisals when selling the property, while a retrospective expert appraisal suggested a significantly higher value.

The court held that evidentiary gaps, including untested appraisal evidence and unanswered allegations regarding the conduct of the mortgagee’s solicitor, created genuine issues requiring a trial.

The court also refused security for costs, finding the moving party failed to establish any ground under Rule 56.01.

Both branches of the motion were dismissed.

Following a successful family law motion, the applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that the respondent had acted in bad faith by willfully disobeying a prior court order requiring payment of property taxes, thereby placing the matrimonial home at risk of municipal tax sale.

The respondent also failed to provide affidavit evidence explaining his non-compliance and did not respond to the applicant’s costs submissions.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court held that the respondent’s conduct warranted full recovery costs.

Costs were fixed and ordered payable forthwith.

Appeal in child protection proceedings where a First Nation community and a family member challenged a Crown wardship disposition.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred by refusing a short adjournment when approximately 1500 pages of disclosure were provided on the first day of trial, preventing meaningful review and the ability to obtain counsel.

They also argued the trial judge failed to give adequate consideration to the children’s Indigenous identity, culture, and heritage in determining their best interests, particularly where the foster placement had relocated the children to the United Kingdom.

The court held that denying the adjournment constituted a denial of natural justice and that insufficient weight had been given to cultural identity considerations.

The original judgment was set aside and a new trial ordered before a different judge.

Following a successful family law motion for increased parenting time, the court addressed costs.

The moving party had been entirely successful and was found to have acted reasonably in seeking increased access through counsel.

The responding party was found to have behaved unreasonably by secretly recording the moving party and selectively presenting video evidence, resulting in an order requiring full production and transcription of the recordings at her expense.

Considering the factors under Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, the court awarded partial indemnity costs.

The responding party was ordered to pay $6,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

In advance of a new trial ordered by the Court of Appeal on issues of unjust enrichment and constructive trust relating to corporate shares, the applicant sought updated financial disclosure and interim disbursements and legal expenses under Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules.

The court permitted expanded financial disclosure to allow the applicant to investigate a claim to post‑separation increases in share value.

However, the request that the respondent fund updated valuation reports and legal expenses was denied.

The court held that the evidence did not demonstrate a need to level the playing field, that the respondent lacked superior financial resources, and that the applicant failed to show the updated valuation was necessary or that the claim for post‑separation increase in value was meritorious.

The plaintiffs requested an adjournment of the trial after discovering their counsel had been suspended by the Law Society.

The defendants sought costs thrown away for trial preparation.

The court declined to award costs at this stage, finding that the plaintiffs were blameless for the delay and that the trial judge would be in a better position to determine the issue of costs based on all circumstances, including whether the trial could have proceeded earlier to mitigate costs.

The applicant spouse brought a motion seeking a vesting order transferring title to the matrimonial home after the respondent spouse failed to comply with a prior order requiring payment of outstanding property taxes.

The respondent, who held sole title, had allowed property taxes and insurance to lapse, placing the home at risk of tax sale despite the applicant and children having exclusive possession.

The court found the respondent’s non‑compliance was willful and rejected claims that he lacked funds, drawing an adverse inference from his failure to file responsive evidence.

Relying on ss. 9, 12, and 24 of the Family Law Act and s. 100 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court held it had jurisdiction to grant a vesting order to preserve the property pending equalization and other claims.

Title to the matrimonial home was ordered transferred to the applicant to allow payment of taxes, insurance, and preservation of the asset during the litigation.

The applicant sought leave under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act to institute proceedings challenging prior family law orders and seeking damages for alleged fraud, abuse of process, and misconduct by the opposing party and counsel.

The applicant was subject to a vexatious proceedings order requiring leave of the court before commencing further proceedings.

The court held that the proposed motion lacked reasonable grounds and consisted largely of conclusory allegations of fraud unsupported by factual particulars.

The court also found that the applicant sought relief beyond what is permitted on a leave application under s. 140(4), including damages claims.

Leave to institute the proceeding was therefore refused and costs were awarded to the respondent.

In a family law proceeding, the applicant brought an ex parte motion alleging that the respondent had engaged in unauthorized surveillance and intercepted communications, seeking relief related to disclosure and preservation of evidence.

The court found that the motion did not meet the urgency threshold for a motion without notice under Rule 14(12) of the Family Law Rules because there was no evidence of ongoing surveillance and an investigation had already found no unauthorized devices.

However, the court determined that repeated unanswered requests for disclosure justified procedural intervention.

Leave was granted to bring the motion prior to a case conference, and the respondent was ordered to provide an affidavit of documents and preserve any electronic devices containing potential surveillance material.