Christine A. Torry

The father (D.R.) and paternal grandmother (C.L.) appealed a trial judge's decision regarding access to the children (K.R., S.R., C.R.) who were in the extended care of Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington Country (F&CS).

The trial judge had barred access for the father to two daughters, granted limited access to the son, and granted limited supervised access to the grandmother, making the children the access holders.

The appellants sought more liberal access, reunification therapy, and a stay of adoption proceedings.

The appeal court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the children remained in need of protection due to emotional harm risks, primarily from the paternal family's denial of sexual abuse allegations and lack of support for the children's trauma stories.

The court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings or legal principles, including the refusal to order reunification therapy without the children's consent and a detailed therapeutic plan.

On appeal from a trial judgment dealing with division of property and spousal and child support following marriage breakdown.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's findings regarding imputation of income, particularly the decision to impute income to him but not to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal found that the respondent was intentionally underemployed and that income should have been imputed to both parties or neither.

The appeal was allowed in part, varying the support obligations to zero as of January 1, 2013, and modifying the review provision to allow either party to seek variation based on any relevant change in circumstances.

The Children's Aid Society of the County of Dufferin sought leave to withdraw a protection application concerning a child.

The respondent, a pediatric nurse with 17 years of experience as a foster parent, consented to the withdrawal but sought costs on a full indemnification basis.

The court found that while the Society did not act in bad faith, the decision to apprehend the child was an ill-considered use of the Society's powers that could not be justified.

The court awarded costs to the respondent for the apprehension hearing and the period leading up to the temporary care hearing, but declined to award costs for work undertaken after the Society's settlement offer on May 22, 2013, which was focused on adding the Toronto Children's Aid Society as a party rather than resolving the protection concerns.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that two children were in need of protection and seeking placement in the care of their father subject to supervision.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking custody of both children and suspension of the father's access.

The court found that the children had suffered emotional harm as a result of high-conflict parenting and the mother's mental health and substance abuse issues.

The court granted the Society's motion, finding no genuine issue for trial on either the protection finding or the appropriate disposition.

The children were placed in the father's care with supervised access to the mother, with specific terms addressing the mother's mental health treatment, alcohol abuse aftercare, and a re-unification assessment and counselling process for the older child.