Cedric Yaacov Laurent Nahum

The Children's Aid Society sought a finding that two children were in need of protection and an order placing them in Extended Society Care.

The mother opposed the application, seeking the return of the children to her care, supported by the father.

Following a lengthy trial, the court found the children in need of protection due to ongoing exposure to domestic violence, chronic school absenteeism, and the mother's inability to meet their basic needs.

The court concluded that the mother's plan was not viable and placed the children in Extended Society Care, while granting specified access to the mother, father, and siblings.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment in a defamation action against the defendant.

The defendant had shared a screenshot of a video of the plaintiffs play fighting, falsely accusing them of racism and mocking the death of George Floyd.

The viral social media campaign resulted in the plaintiffs losing their jobs and facing severe harassment.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the statements defamatory and rejecting the defences of justification and fair comment.

The court awarded each plaintiff $50,000 in general damages and granted a permanent injunction requiring the removal of the posts.

The appellant father appealed a trial judge's decision finding his child in need of protection and placing the child in the extended care of the Society.

During the trial, the father brought a non-suit motion at the close of the Society's case.

The trial judge failed to put the father to his election on whether to call evidence, reserved her decision, and subsequently ruled on a final basis that the child was in need of protection before the father could present his case.

The Divisional Court held this was a fundamental procedural error that deprived the father of his right to be heard on the protection issue.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

During a trial for domestic assault, the Crown brought an application to admit the complainant's prior audio-recorded out-of-court statement for its truth after she recanted her evidence on the stand.

The court applied the principled approach to hearsay, focusing on threshold reliability.

The court found that procedural reliability was established because the statement was audio-recorded, the complainant was available for meaningful cross-examination at trial, and she understood the importance of telling the truth to the police.

The application was granted and the statement was admitted.

The children's aid society brought a motion to dismiss a mother's status review application on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction because the issue of access from the initial protection application was still pending following an appeal.

The court dismissed the society's motion, finding that status and access are distinct concepts under the legislation.

The court held that an outstanding access issue does not bar a parent from bringing a status review application regarding the children's placement, especially where significant changes in the proposed plans of care have occurred.

In a child protection proceeding, the father sought a temporary order returning the child to a 50/50 shared parenting regime.

The children's aid society and the mother opposed, seeking to confirm an existing order placing the child in the mother's care with supervised access for the father.

The court found that returning the child to the father's care was not in the child's best interests due to unresolved concerns regarding the father's alleged drug use, the presence of inappropriate individuals at his residence, and his behavior during access visits.

The court ordered that the child remain in the mother's care subject to society supervision.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment in a child protection application, seeking a final order granting joint decision-making responsibility of an Indigenous child to the mother and her former partner.

The father opposed the motion, arguing for shared decision-making and raising concerns about the child's exposure to her First Nations heritage.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial and concluded that the proposed order was in the child's best interests, noting the history of domestic violence and the proposed caregivers' commitment to fostering the child's cultural identity.

The motion for summary judgment was granted.

The defendants, who were patients and cleaners for a family physician, were charged with multiple offences including using forged prescriptions and possessing fentanyl and oxycodone.

The Crown alleged they used their after-hours access to the doctor's office to forge prescriptions and fax them to pharmacies.

The court found both defendants guilty of using forged documents and possessing fentanyl and property obtained by crime, relying on circumstantial evidence including fax transmission times, lack of office stamps, and evidence of cutting and pasting.

The defendants were acquitted of possessing proceeds of crime due to insufficient evidence.

The accused, charged with numerous serious offences including conspiracy to commit murder and firearms offences, applied for interim release.

The accused proposed a release plan involving two sureties and GPS monitoring.

The court found the proposed plan insufficient, noting that the accused had previously breached bail conditions while under the supervision of one of the proposed sureties.

The court ordered the accused's detention on secondary grounds (risk of interfering with the administration of justice) and tertiary grounds (maintaining confidence in the administration of justice given the gravity of the offences and the strength of the Crown's case regarding threats).

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion under s. 130 of the CYFSA for the production of third-party records relating to the parents and their five children.

The parents opposed the motion, arguing they had previously consented and the motion was premature.

The kin, who were added as parties to seek access to one child, brought a cross-motion seeking disclosure of the Society's entire file and the third-party records.

The court granted the Society's motion, finding the records relevant to the child protection concerns, with minor exceptions for counselling notes.

The court dismissed the kin's cross-motion, holding that their limited participatory rights only entitled them to records relevant to their claim for access to the one child.

The respondent mother, J.L., brought a motion for the presiding judge to recuse herself from hearing pending motions and the upcoming trial, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias due to the judge's prior involvement, evidentiary rulings, and perceived negative language.

The respondent father, A.C., supported the motion.

The Children's Aid Society, counsel for the child B.L., and the added kin parties (T.P. and M.C.) opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the recusal motion, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias, emphasizing judicial continuity in complex family law cases and the high threshold for recusal.

The appellant mother sought to appeal a temporary order adding the child's kin as parties to a child protection proceeding for the limited purpose of seeking access.

The Divisional Court determined the order was interlocutory, requiring leave to appeal.

Applying the test under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court denied leave, finding no conflicting decisions, no reason to doubt the correctness of the order, and no issue of general importance.

The accused brought an application for certiorari to quash her committal for trial and for a stay of proceedings.

During a judicial pre-trial where she was unrepresented, the Crown added a serious charge without explanation, and the accused was incorrectly advised she had no right to a preliminary inquiry and was not put to her election under section 536 of the Criminal Code.

The court found this to be a jurisdictional error that could not be retroactively corrected by the Crown withdrawing the added charge.

The committal was quashed and the matter remitted to the Ontario Court of Justice for a proper election.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed as premature.

The court heard two openness applications regarding a young child with special needs who was placed for adoption.

The birth father sought monthly in-person contact, while the Office of the Children's Lawyer and the Children's Aid Society supported two visits per year.

The court considered the child's best interests, the need for stability in the adoptive home, and the adoptive parents' ability to comply with the order.

The court ordered a minimum of three in-person openness contacts per year between the child and the birth father, which may include the paternal grandmother.

The mother brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the children's aid society's protection application regarding her infant child.

The society alleged the child was in need of protection due to the father's history of substance abuse, domestic violence, and a prior judicial finding that he likely sexually abused another child.

The court found no triable issue regarding physical or emotional harm, as the mother had adequately cared for the child.

However, applying the cautionary approach to summary judgment in child protection matters, the court concluded there was a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding whether the mother could protect the child from the risk of sexual harm posed by the father.

The motion was dismissed.

The Children's Aid Society sought an order placing a 16-month-old child in extended society care.

The child was apprehended at birth.

The mother consented to the order but sought access.

The father, who has Indigenous heritage, developmental delays, and a criminal record, sought the return of the child to his care.

The court found that returning the child to the father posed too high a risk due to his impulsivity, inconsistent access attendance, and inability to cooperate with the Society.

The court ordered the child placed in extended society care.

The court also ordered access for both parents, designating the mother and the child as access holders and the father as an access recipient, to balance the child's need for a permanent placement with the benefits of maintaining a connection to his biological parents.

The Children's Aid Society apprehended the child at birth and sought a finding that the child was in need of protection.

After the Society closed its case at the adjudicative stage of the trial, the father brought a motion for a non-suit, arguing the Society failed to establish a prima facie case.

The court dismissed the non-suit motion, finding that the father's impulsivity, history of domestic violence, inconsistent access visits, and inability to control his emotions posed a real risk of physical and emotional harm to the child.

The court concluded the child was in need of protection and directed the matter to proceed to the dispositional stage.

Application by defendant Jasmyn Jarrett to join a trial already in progress after she failed to appear on the first day.

The defendant had been arrested on a bench warrant and sought retroactive permission to participate in the trial, having missed the first five days of evidence.

The Crown opposed the application, arguing that the trial had effectively been severed when the Crown proceeded against the three remaining defendants.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the Crown has discretion to proceed with co-accused and that allowing the defendant to join retroactively would prejudice the other defendants' right to a timely trial and would require the Crown to have led evidence differently.

The accused, Albert Tremblay and Amanda Ruddy, applied for directed verdicts of not guilty on multiple counts, arguing the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case.

The court granted directed verdicts for counts related to possession of stolen property (chainsaws) due to lack of recent possession evidence, and for fraud counts due to absence of economic deprivation to the pharmacies.

However, the court denied directed verdicts for a count of possession of property obtained by crime (cash), and for counts of illegal possession of narcotics (fentanyl and oxycodone), finding sufficient circumstantial evidence to proceed to a jury.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to find the child in need of protection and to place her in extended Society care for the purpose of adoption.

The mother consented to the order, while the father opposed it.

The court found that the parents had a history of domestic violence and the father had not presented a viable plan of care.

Applying the test for summary judgment in child protection proceedings, the court concluded there was no genuine issue for trial, found the child in need of protection, and ordered her placed in extended care for adoption.