C.J. Jones

The applicants brought a 14B motion seeking directions regarding an application to dispense with the respondent's consent to the adoption of a child under section 138 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The applicants sought orders permitting the application to proceed under Rule 34(16) despite being a family adoption, clarifying required service materials, and obtaining substituted service by email.

The court granted most procedural directions but dismissed the motion for substituted service, requiring instead that the applicants effect special service in accordance with the Family Law Rules and the Hague Service Convention, as the respondent resides in the United States.

This is a costs decision in a child protection proceeding under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

The court awarded costs to the child protection society against the respondent parents for two of three motions brought by the parents.

The parents' motion to vary a temporary care and custody order was dismissed, as was their motion to remove a psychiatrist's report from the court record.

The parents also brought six contempt motions (five against individual society workers and one against the agency itself), all of which were dismissed.

The court found the parents' conduct in bringing these motions, particularly the contempt motions based on flawed evidence and material misrepresentations, to be exceptional and warranting costs awards.

The court awarded costs of $4,222.83 on the variation motion and $7,008.04 on the contempt motions, but declined to award costs on the motion to remove the medical report.

Parents in a child protection proceeding brought a motion to remove the child's legal representative, Ms. Samira Ahmed of Justice for Children and Youth.

The child, nearly sixteen years old and in the care of the child protection society since February 2013, opposed the motion.

The parents argued the child lacked capacity to instruct counsel, that the representative exceeded her role, that a litigation guardian should be appointed, and that the representative had misused confidential information.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the child had clearly expressed views separate from both parents and the society, that legal representation was desirable, and that the representative had properly discharged her duties in advocating for the child's interests.

A child protection society sought an order excluding a 14-year-old child from attending all future court hearings in child protection proceedings, arguing that her presence would cause emotional harm.

The child, represented by independent counsel, opposed the motion and expressed her wish to attend all court appearances.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the child had experienced nightmares and emotional distress, the evidence did not establish that court attendance itself would cause emotional harm.

The distress appeared linked to other factors, including anxiety about a proposed treatment placement in the United States.

The court established a detailed protocol to manage the child's court attendance and minimize exposure to conflict among the adults involved in the case.

The respondent father brought a motion for a summary decision on whether settlement funds of $175,000 USD received for copyright infringement of his musical composition constituted "income" for child support purposes under the Child Support Guidelines.

The applicant mother cross-moved, arguing the funds were income or, alternatively, that income should be imputed.

The court held that the settlement funds constitute "income" for child support purposes, even if not taxable for income tax purposes, as they represent compensation for lost royalties and profits from the copyright.

The court allowed reasonable deductions for expenses directly incurred in recovering the damages and addressed tax grossing-up and currency conversion issues.

A motion brought by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking to vary a supervision order by placing a young child in the temporary care of the father alone, with restrictions on the mother's contact, following an incident on September 22, 2012 in which the mother sustained a self-inflicted stab wound while extremely intoxicated and engaged in conflict with the father.

The court applied the statutory test under section 64(8) of the Child and Family Services Act, finding that a material change in circumstances had occurred relating to the level of risk to the child, and that the proposed order was in the child's best interests and the least disruptive available option.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order to make the child a crown ward with a plan for adoption.

The respondent mother opposed the motion and sought the child's return to her care or, alternatively, placement with maternal relatives under a kinship plan.

The court found that while the child could not be returned to the mother's care due to her history of physical abuse and lack of engagement, there remained a genuine issue for trial regarding whether a viable kinship placement with the maternal uncle and aunt could succeed with appropriate therapeutic intervention and family support services.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion and adjourned the proceeding for trial on the discrete issues of the viability of the kinship plan and the child's access to family members.

A motion by the applicant mother seeking a declaration that the respondent is a parent of the oldest child for child support purposes, temporary custody of three children, temporary access restrictions, and temporary child support.

The respondent brought a cross-motion seeking temporary joint custody of his two biological children and expanded access.

The court found that the respondent demonstrated a settled intention to treat the oldest child as a member of his family during cohabitation and therefore stands in the place of a parent.

Temporary custody was awarded to the mother.

The respondent was granted graduated access to all three children, with the option to include the oldest child.

Temporary child support was ordered for all three children based on an imputed income.

A temporary care and custody motion under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act concerning two children apprehended by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto.

The respondent mother sought the return of the younger child to her care under a supervision order.

The court applied the two-part test from section 51(3) of the Act and found that the society established reasonable grounds to believe the child would likely suffer harm if returned to the mother's care, and that the child could not be adequately protected by supervision terms alone.

The court ordered the child remain in the society's temporary care with restricted access provisions.

A default hearing brought by the Director, Family Responsibility Office against a support payor for arrears of child and spousal support totalling $68,335.56.

The payor had been in default since December 2008 following job loss and subsequent development of severe clinical depression and anxiety disorder.

The Director sought an order for incarceration.

The court found that the payor had discharged his burden of proof by demonstrating he was unable, for valid reasons, to pay the arrears or make subsequent payments.

The court dismissed the incarceration remedy and instead imposed reporting and disclosure obligations, including annual submission of tax returns, financial statements, and medical reports regarding the payor's employability.