Brian Hall

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order, arguing the judge misapprehended evidence regarding the interpretation of a quitclaim deed and its tax consequences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the interpretation of the deed was a matter of law and intention, not evidence, and that the motion judge correctly considered the tax consequences without misapprehending the evidence.

The moving party father brought a motion for the production of his children's health and counselling records from four service providers, including records relating to one child's gender-affirming care.

The children, who were capable of consenting under the Personal Health Information Protection Act, refused consent.

The court dismissed the father's request under section 20(5) of the Children's Law Reform Act, finding broad disclosure was not in the children's best interests given the high-conflict separation and allegations of family violence.

Under Rule 19(11) of the Family Law Rules, the court ordered production of the reunification therapist's records and limited information about the children's enrollment in counselling.

However, the court found the individual counselling and gender-affirming care records were privileged under the Wigmore test and dismissed the motion for their production.

The applicant mother was completely successful on her motion for guideline child support and section 7 expenses.

She sought costs on a full recovery basis pursuant to Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules, having obtained a result better than her offers to settle.

The court found the applicant's efforts to negotiate settlement and the time expended were reasonable and necessitated by the respondent father's rigid and unreasonable conduct.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of $9,213.83.

The applicant sought custody and the return of a child removed from Ontario to the United States by the respondent.

The court found that the child’s habitual residence was Ontario and that Ontario had jurisdiction under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction despite a competing preliminary order issued by a Utah court.

However, the respondent had not attorned to the court’s jurisdiction and service of the application had not complied with the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extra Judicial Documents.

As a result, the court declined to grant judgment through an uncontested trial.

The matter was adjourned to permit proper service under the Hague Convention.

In a child protection proceeding, the child’s father and step‑mother brought a motion seeking an order placing the child in their care and custody.

The court treated the motion as a temporary care and custody hearing under s. 51 of the Child and Family Services Act because no prior temporary care and custody hearing had been held.

Although the evidence established reasonable grounds to believe the child was at risk of harm, the court found that the risk could be adequately addressed through a supervision order while the child remained with the mother and step‑father.

The court emphasized continuity of care, the stage of the proceedings, and the society’s position that supervision was appropriate.

The motion seeking placement with the father and step‑mother was dismissed.