Christopher Patrick Fitzgerald

The respondent father brought a contempt motion against the applicant mother for overholding their child.

The child was returned before the motion, and the court dismissed the contempt motion as it was not in the child's best interests.

In this costs decision, the court found the father was justified in preparing the motion materials but should not have argued the motion after the child was returned.

The court awarded the father $1,500 in costs.

This is a child protection motion under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act involving four children and two separate applications.

Application No. 1 concerns three non-Indigenous boys (G., P., and C.) with parents A.W. and M.P. who had a joint custody order.

Application No. 2 concerns an infant (B.) with mother A.W. and father J.S., a member of Batchewana First Nation.

The society sought temporary care and custody of all children.

The court found reasonable grounds for risk of harm based on domestic violence, excessive alcohol consumption, and failure to comply with safety agreements involving J.S. However, the court declined to grant full temporary care and custody to the father for the three boys, instead maintaining the existing joint custody arrangement with conditions on the mother's care.

For the infant B., the court placed her with her maternal grandmother pending consent, with supervised paternal access for J.S.

The respondent brought a motion seeking an order to deem 100% of a previous costs award, arising from an eight-day trial, as a debt related to child support, thereby making it non-dischargeable in the applicant's bankruptcy under section 178(1)(c) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The applicant contended that the costs primarily stemmed from custody and access issues and should be discharged.

The court, relying on its independent recollection of the original trial, found that the child support issue was inextricably linked to the shared custody claim.

Consequently, the court apportioned 50% of the original costs award to child support, declaring that portion to be a non-dischargeable debt.

This decision addresses the respondent's request for costs following a successful access motion.

The respondent had made a reasonable offer to settle that was not accepted by the applicant, and the final order was as favourable as or more favourable than the offer.

Despite the applicant's genuine fears regarding the child's best interests, the court found the respondent was presumptively entitled to costs under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The court exercised its discretion to award partial indemnity costs of $7,000.00 to the respondent, balancing the parties' conduct and the reasonableness of the respondent's offer.

The parties separated and the respondent father had been exercising supervised access to their two-year-old child.

Both parties brought motions for interim relief, with the hearing focused on whether the respondent's access should be changed to unsupervised and expanded to include overnights.

The court found that the respondent had demonstrated the ability to provide quality care for the child and that it was in the child's best interests to transition to unsupervised, expanded access, including overnight visits.

The parties, parents of a four-year-old child, brought competing interim motions.

The mother sought to relocate the child from Hornepayne to Sudbury to pursue education and reside with her new partner, and requested that the father's access be supervised following allegations of sexual impropriety.

The father sought expanded unsupervised access and opposed the relocation.

The court applied the Gordon v. Goertz factors and determined that an interim relocation was not in the child's best interests, as it would disrupt the child's relationship with the father and community prior to a full trial.

Regarding access, the court noted that the Children's Aid Society had investigated the allegations and found them unsubstantiated, concluding there were no protection concerns.

Consequently, the court dismissed the mother's motions, denied the interim relocation, and reinstated the father's unsupervised access.

The plaintiff brought an action seeking an order vesting title to a portion of his parents' property, which he had used to operate a scrap yard business with his late father.

He claimed his parents had promised him the land and sought a constructive trust based on the principles in Soulos v. Korkontzilas.

The court dismissed the claim, finding insufficient evidence of a clear promise and concluding that the family's mutual assistance did not give rise to unjust enrichment, wrongful conduct, or an equitable obligation that would justify imposing a constructive trust.

The Children's Aid Society of Algoma brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that two children were in need of protection under section 37(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Child and Family Services Act, and an order that no further child protection orders be made.

The mother opposed the finding, contending the Society should never have been involved.

The court found that while the children were at risk of physical harm due to a culmination of factors including the mother's physical health issues, mental health decline, and custody and access conflicts between the parents, there was no pattern of neglect.

The court granted the motion, finding the children in need of protection under section 37(2)(b)(i) only, and ordered that no further child protection orders be necessary.

The applicant father brought a motion for unsupervised access to his two children, while the respondent mother brought a cross-motion for child support, an order securing the father's personal injury settlement funds, and leave to amend her pleadings.

The court granted the father unsupervised daytime access, finding that he had successfully managed his chronic pain and prescription drug dependency.

The court dismissed the mother's request to secure the settlement funds, noting no history of asset dissipation or failure to pay support.

The mother was permitted to amend her pleadings to add a Family Law Act claim, and the father was ordered to pay interim child support based on a notional income derived from his settlement funds.