Daniela Giacomina Bertossi

The appellant, a children's residence operator, appealed a proposal to revoke its licence and brought a motion for confidentiality orders and a timeline order.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal applied the openness principle from Toronto Star v. AG Ontario, balancing it against the privacy interests of children.

The Tribunal granted orders protecting the identities of children and temporarily sealing Children's Aid Society records, but refused to anonymize the appellant's name, finding no significant privacy interest outweighed the openness principle for a regulated corporate entity.

The request for a 90-day timeline order was dismissed as a consent timetable was already in place.

The Ontario Superior Court was asked to confirm a provisional order from the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench that significantly reduced child and spousal support arrears owed by the respondent.

The court found itself unable to proceed with the confirmation hearing due to the absence of a crucial transcript from the Alberta proceedings where the decision to reduce arrears was originally rendered.

The court ordered the production of this missing transcript on an expedited basis and extended a temporary stay of enforcement of the original divorce judgment until the confirmation hearing could be finalized.

The appellant brought a motion to extend the time for filing an appeal from a Notice of Proposal to Refuse to Renew a Licence under the Child and Family Services Act.

The appellant argued it was misled by the appeal procedures and missed the deadline despite intending to appeal.

Applying the four-part test from Manuel v. Registrar, the Tribunal found the appellant had a bona fide intention to appeal, the delay was short, and the prejudice to the appellant outweighed the prejudice to the Director.

However, the Tribunal concluded the appeal lacked merit because the appellant's facility had been vacant for over two years, triggering the statutory requirement under s. 203(1) to surrender the licence.

The motion to extend time was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order striking his pleadings and dismissing his motion to change a final spousal support order, as well as an enforcement order for support arrears.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding that the appellant's pleadings were properly struck due to his wanton noncompliance with court orders and failure to pay costs.

The court also found no error in the enforcement order or any evidence of judicial bias, noting the appellant failed to avail himself of procedural rights to demonstrate an inability to pay.

The Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program appealed a decision holding that child support payments made to the mother of a disabled adult were not 'income' attributable to the disabled adult under the ODSPA.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that characterizing child support paid to a custodial parent as the disabled adult's income would undermine the disabled adult's right to apply independently for benefits and would unfairly discriminate against disabled children of separated parents.

The child support payments are not payments made 'to or on behalf of or for the benefit of' the disabled adult until the mother actually uses them for the adult's benefit, at which point exemptions for disability-related expenses may apply.

The appellant, a person with a disability who shares joint custody of her three children on an alternating week basis, appealed a decision reducing the basic needs component of her income support under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The Tribunal had awarded her 100 per cent of the shelter allowance but only 50 per cent of the basic needs allowance, reflecting the shared custody arrangement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to adjust the basic needs allowance to reflect the reality of joint custody, as the appellant did not have primary care and control of the children more than 50 per cent of the time.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his motion to vary child support and rescind arrears totalling $21,343.40, alongside ongoing support of $425 per month.

The Divisional Court considered whether it had jurisdiction under section 19(1)(a) of the Courts of Justice Act, given the combined amount in issue exceeded $25,000.

The court held that the monetary limit applies to the total amount in issue across all subclauses, concluding it lacked jurisdiction and transferred the appeal to the Court of Appeal.