Cherry Evangeline Isaacs-Reynolds

The respondent brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the applicant's claims for equalization, retroactive child support, retroactive spousal support, and a constructive trust over the former matrimonial home.

The court dismissed the claims for equalization and retroactive support, finding them statute-barred or otherwise too late due to lack of timely notice and potential prejudice to the payor.

However, the court found a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the constructive trust claim over the property proceeds, noting credibility issues and the applicability of discoverability to real property claims.

No costs were awarded due to divided success.

The applicant wife brought a summary judgment motion seeking payment of $193,596.50 from the respondent husband, representing her share of a joint TD Waterhouse account that she contended was not included in their separation agreement's equalization payment.

The husband opposed, claiming the account was included and challenging the service of a Request to Admit.

The court found the husband was deemed to have admitted the facts in the Request to Admit due to his failure to respond.

Applying the summary judgment test, the court determined there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding the husband owed the wife the claimed amount.

The court also found the husband's procedural delays and misrepresentations lacked credibility.

The wife's motion was granted, and she was awarded the principal sum with interest and costs.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to terminate the father's access to twin Crown wards (M.M. and D.M.).

The father had missed numerous access visits due to work schedule conflicts and other factors.

The society argued that the father's inconsistent access created instability and negatively impacted the children's behaviour.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial, including questions about the quality of the father-child relationship, the society's conduct in suspending access without court order, and the children's actual preferences regarding contact with their father.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion within a status review application seeking to place two children (ages 9 and 7) in the temporary care and custody of their maternal grandfather in the Cayman Islands, subject to supervision.

The father opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion seeking placement of the children with himself and his partner.

The court granted the society's motion, finding that the children had been in foster care for nearly two years and that the father had not met his onus of establishing that the best interests of the children required a change in their care.

The maternal grandfather had demonstrated strong parenting skills with the two younger siblings and had a positive home study.

The court ordered placement with the maternal grandfather effective August 29, 2015, with telephone and Skype access to the father, his partner, and the paternal grandmother.

The respondent (mother) sought costs of $6,780 arising from three court appearances in a family law matter involving access, travel, and child and spousal support issues.

The applicant (father) opposed the costs request.

The court found the mother was the successful party at each appearance and awarded costs of $6,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, payable at $250 per month starting October 1, 2015, with a provision that failure to pay within 30 days would render the entire remaining amount immediately due and payable.

A child protection trial under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act concerning a child apprehended on July 22, 2012.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto sought a finding that the child was in need of protection and a crown wardship order with no access.

The parents opposed the application and sought return of the child to their care, alternatively with supervision.

The court found the child was in need of protection due to abandonment by the mother, emotional unavailability of the father, exposure to domestic violence, excessive physical discipline, and neglect of the child's physical and emotional needs.

The court made a crown wardship order and granted the child (rather than the parents) a right of access to the parents once monthly for two hours, fully supervised by the society.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that two young children were in need of protection and should be made Crown wards without access for purposes of adoption.

The respondent father opposed the motion, arguing there were genuine issues for trial and that he had undergone rehabilitation.

The court found that the Society had established a prima facie case based on evidence of the father's extensive criminal history including violent offences, domestic violence against the mother, substance abuse, mental health issues, non-compliance with court orders, and the children's special needs.

The court granted the motion and made the children Crown wards without access.