Darren L. M. Berlinguette

Following a trial where success was divided, the court determined costs.

Neither party was awarded costs for the trial due to divided success and a lack of offers to settle.

However, the respondent was awarded costs on a full indemnity basis for two motions regarding the return of the child.

The court found the applicant acted in bad faith by unilaterally relocating with the child to Nova Scotia on two occasions in contravention of existing court orders and endorsements.

The Applicant sought custody, child support, spousal support, and relocation to Nova Scotia.

The Respondent sought joint custody, primary residence in Sudbury, and opposed relocation and spousal support.

The court granted joint custody with primary residence to the Applicant, permitted relocation to Nova Scotia, ordered child support based on imputed income due to the Respondent's questionable financial activities and lack of employment effort, and fixed arrears.

The claim for spousal support was dismissed due to insufficient evidence from the Applicant.

The decision emphasized the child's best interests, the Applicant's role as primary caregiver, and the Respondent's concerning conduct.

A custody and access dispute between separated parents regarding their child, Jarvis Lebrun.

The mother sought joint custody with primary residence and liberal access for the father.

The father sought to maintain the status quo with the child residing primarily with him.

The court appointed the Office of the Children's Lawyer to represent the child's interests.

After considering the child's clear and consistent preference to reside with the mother, the support system available to the mother, and the less-than-ideal circumstances of the father's care arrangement, the court awarded joint custody with primary residence to the mother and liberal access to the father.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision staying her application for sole custody of an Indigenous child under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The child was placed with the appellant pursuant to a Customary Care Agreement under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The motion judge stayed the custody application under section 103 of the CYFSA, finding that the customary care agreement ousted the custody application.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, holding that while section 103 may not strictly apply to customary care agreements, the legislative intent of the CYFSA prioritizes customary care for Indigenous children, and the court's inherent jurisdiction under section 106 of the Courts of Justice Act properly supported the stay.

A child protection agency sought summary judgment on a motion to establish that a child was in need of protection and to grant custody to the paternal grandparents.

The respondent mother opposed the custody order but took no position on the identification order.

The respondent father supported the motion.

The court granted summary judgment on custody to the paternal grandparents and supervised access to the father, but declined to grant summary judgment on the mother's access, finding that genuine issues remained regarding the accommodation of the mother's work schedule and exploration of third-party supervisors.

The court ordered a focused one-day hearing on the mother's access issue.

A child protection motion for summary judgment brought by the Children's Aid Society seeking a finding that a child is in need of protection under section 37(2)(b)(i) of the Child and Family Services Act, an order for crown wardship, and an order for no maternal access.

The child was apprehended at birth and had been in foster care for approximately two years with only supervised access to the mother.

The court found that the mother's severe intellectual limitations, history of unsuccessful parenting with three prior children, personality difficulties, and inability to comply with supervision orders created a risk of physical harm.

The court granted the motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring trial on the grounds for protection, disposition, or access.

The appellant, Adaline Garita Tejado, brought a motion for a stay of an Ontario Court of Justice order dated August 5, 2016, which directed the return of her two children to Webbwood, their former habitual residence.

The appellant had left Webbwood with the children due to domestic violence and was residing in a women's shelter in Mindemoya.

The motion also sought leave to appeal the August 5, 2016 order.

The court granted the stay of the order to return the children, finding that the appeal raised serious questions, the appellant and children would suffer irreparable harm if the stay was not granted, and the balance of convenience favored the appellant, particularly considering the children's best interests and the contradictory nature of the original order which granted the mother interim custody but required the children to return to a home she could not safely inhabit.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that a child was in need of protection under subsections 37(2)(b)(i) and 37(2)(b)(ii) of the Child and Family Services Act and an order making the child a Crown ward without access.

The respondent mother opposed the motion with a brief affidavit containing blanket denials unsupported by specific facts.

The respondent father provided no response.

The court found the Society had discharged its burden at both the finding and disposition stages, establishing compelling evidence of the parents' inability to adequately care for the child, the mother's untreated mental health issues, and the father's complete lack of engagement.

The court made an order declaring the child a Crown ward with no access for purposes of adoption.

A child protection matter involving three children where the Children's Aid Society sought disposition orders following findings that the children were in need of protection.

The mother's relationship with a person with a serious criminal history and allegations of child sexual abuse posed significant risk to the children.

The mother repeatedly violated court orders by facilitating contact between the children and this individual.

The court granted sole custody of two older children to the father and made the youngest child a Crown ward without access, prioritizing continuity of care and the child's long-term stability and permanence.

The court determined costs following a motion brought by the father to enforce compliance with three provisions of a consent order, particularly a provision requiring the mother to afford the father the first opportunity to care for the child when she was unable to do so.

The father was successful on the motion, and the court awarded costs to the father while considering the mother's financial circumstances as a custodial parent and the best interests of the child.

The court fixed costs at $2,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes, payable in monthly instalments.

The father brought a motion to enforce compliance with a December 11, 2013 consent order, specifically paragraph 8(j), which required the mother to afford the father the first opportunity to care for the child when she was unable to do so.

The father claimed the mother failed to provide her work schedule and had unilaterally placed the child in daycare without offering him the opportunity to provide care.

The court found the mother's interpretation of paragraph 8(j) was incorrect and that it applied to all periods when she was unable to provide personal parental care, including work commitments.

The court found a material change in circumstances and amended the order to include specific requirements for the mother to provide her work schedule, school details, alternate childcare information, and authorization forms to service providers.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking Crown wardship without access for a child (B.C.) who had been in care for nearly two years.

The child was apprehended shortly after birth due to parental inadequacy.

The respondent father had substance abuse issues, anger management problems, spousal violence history, and criminal involvement, and had lost contact with the child over a year prior.

The respondent mother failed to address her parenting deficiencies and repeatedly engaged in relationships with abusive men despite counseling opportunities.

The court found no genuine issue for trial and granted the Society's motion for Crown wardship without access, with a view to adoption.

The father appealed a child protection order declaring the child a Crown ward with no access and sought placement of the child with proposed caregivers under a supervision order.

The appellant argued that the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding the caregivers’ ability to care for the child and erred in concluding that continued parental access was not in the child’s best interests.

Applying the standards of correctness and palpable and overriding error, the court found ample evidence supporting the trial judge’s findings, including concerns about the proposed caregiver’s health, past parenting difficulties, and the risks associated with parental access.

The trial judge properly weighed the competing placement proposals and emphasized the importance of permanency for a child who had been in care since birth.

The appeal was dismissed.