Charles Morison

The respondent brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to retroactively adjust child support, arguing the original imputed income was incorrect and the children ceased to qualify for support earlier.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the respondent failed to provide necessary financial disclosure (income tax returns for 2008-2015) to establish a material change in circumstances for the retroactive variation of income-based support.

The court also declined to rescind arrears or reduce the post-judgment interest rate, emphasizing the respondent's failure to make payments and provide disclosure.

The child welfare agency sought to proceed with a child protection trial but was unable to complete its trial directions due to the youth's new criminal charges and the agency's inability to obtain the youth's records from the Youth Court under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The Superior Court of Justice adjourned the trial and provided a detailed analysis of the intersection between child welfare proceedings and youth criminal justice privacy provisions.

The court concluded that the agency has a right of access to the records under section 119 of the YCJA, although the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to make the access order.

Following a previous decision regarding an adjournment request in a child protection matter, the court selected a lawyer from a list provided by Legal Aid Ontario to act as amicus curiae.

The child welfare agency sought an adjournment of a protection application involving an Indigenous youth with complex needs, intending to withdraw the application in favour of a Voluntary Youth Service Agreement once the youth turned 16.

The court noted significant delays, multiple placement breakdowns, and a failure by the agency to implement recommendations from a psychological assessment.

While the court granted the adjournment due to the agency's failure to prepare for the trial scheduling conference, it imposed strict trial directions and appointed amicus curiae to ensure the court receives the necessary evidence and submissions regarding available services and the child's best interests.

The applicants brought an application seeking a declaration of a 25% equitable ownership interest in a property based on an alleged oral agreement.

The respondents denied the agreement.

At the hearing, the parties jointly requested an adjournment to conduct cross-examinations on affidavits.

The court questioned whether the matter should proceed by application given the fundamental factual dispute, but allowed it to continue as an application on consent, noting it is functionally similar to a summary judgment motion and the hearing judge will ultimately determine if the record is sufficient to resolve the dispute.

The respondent sought to change prior custody and access orders.

The applicant brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss the respondent's motion and modify access.

The court granted summary judgment, dismissing the respondent's motion regarding custody and access, finding no genuine issue for trial given the child's consistent and strong preference not to see the respondent due to alleged abuse and the OCL's report.

The court also granted the applicant's request for modified access, allowing the child discretion.

However, the applicant's request for summary judgment on child support, based on the respondent's alleged scrap metal income while on ODSP, was dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding child and spousal support following the breakdown of a 22-year relationship.

The trial judge imputed minimum wage income to the respondent, who had taken voluntary early retirement, and declined to order lump sum spousal support.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decisions on imputed income and lump sum support, finding no error in principle.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part to eliminate the appellant's obligation to pay retroactive child support, to order ongoing periodic spousal support, and to set aside the trial costs award.

The applicant, a former union official, was terminated by his employer for allegedly attempting to extort $150,000 in exchange for facilitating an undisruptive collective bargaining process.

The union reviewed video evidence provided by the employer and heard contradictory explanations from the applicant before deciding not to pursue his grievance.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the union's investigation was reasonable and its decision not to advance the grievance did not violate section 74 of the Labour Relations Act.