Cheryl R. Lean

The Highland Shores Children’s Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion in a Status Review Application, seeking sole custody of the child B.B. to his paternal grandparents.

The respondent mother opposed, arguing for genuine issues requiring a trial and seeking B.B.'s return to her care or placement with maternal grandparents.

The court found B.B. remained in need of protection and granted custody to the paternal grandparents, citing the mother's inconsistent access, unhealthy relationships, and lack of insight.

However, the court determined that issues regarding parental access, decision-making authority, and sibling access required a focused hearing, dismissing the mother's requests for a Children's Lawyer appointment and a Parenting Capacity Assessment as unnecessary for the custody determination.

A costs decision following a three-day family law trial concerning the primary residence of a child.

The applicant mother was successful in obtaining primary residence of the child in Ottawa, while the respondent father sought to retain custody in Trenton.

Both parties were members of the military.

The court awarded costs to the successful mother, but at a reduced amount due to the complexity and importance of the mobility issue, the absence of a formal settlement offer from the mother, and the reasonableness of both parties' conduct throughout the proceedings.

Following a family law trial addressing custody, residence, access, and income determination, the court considered liability and quantum of costs.

The father had been largely successful at trial on the primary parenting issues and his settlement offers exceeded the final outcome.

The court reviewed the principles governing costs under the Family Law Rules, including proportionality, settlement offers, conduct of the parties, and the financial means of the parties.

Although the mother argued that a prior “costs in the cause” endorsement prevented recovery of earlier motion costs and raised her limited financial means, the court rejected those arguments.

Exercising discretion, the court awarded the father global costs of $26,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, HST, and the earlier motion.

The applicant Children's Aid Society sought to maintain temporary care and custody of two young children apprehended on December 19, 2012, due to serious neglect concerns.

The children were found to be severely malnourished and suffering from developmental delays and medical neglect.

The respondent parents sought return of the children, proposing supervision by extended family members.

The court found that the children were at imminent risk of physical harm due to neglect of basic needs, including nutrition, medical care, and developmental stimulation.

The court determined that a temporary supervision order would be inadequate to protect the children given the mother's significant cognitive limitations and the parents' failure to recognize the seriousness of the protection concerns.

The court ordered the children to remain in the Society's care pending completion of a parenting capacity assessment.