David Elliot

The applicant sought the appointment of an arbitrator pursuant to a co-tenancy agreement to resolve a dispute over the conveyance of residential lots.

The respondent opposed, arguing that the agreement's 'Applicable Law' clause, which attorned to the exclusive jurisdiction of Ontario courts, invalidated the arbitration clause.

The court held that the contract must be read as a whole, finding that the specific arbitration clause qualified the general applicable law clause.

The court appointed an arbitrator to determine the dispute.

A status review application for Crown Wardship with no access concerning two children (ages 8 and 6) who were apprehended due to parental neglect, substance abuse, and psychological disturbance.

The court found that the children continue to be in need of protection and that Crown Wardship without access is in their best interests.

The children exhibited severe developmental delays, inappropriate sexualized behaviour, and lack of secure attachment to either parent.

Expert evidence from Dr. Ellis established that the parents lack the capacity to meet the children's profound emotional and psychological needs.

The court rejected the father's position that he could parent the children with minimal supervision, finding his credibility suspect and his denial of parenting shortfalls deeply rooted in his character.

The appellant father appealed a child protection disposition order granting Crown wardship with no access regarding two children.

He argued the trial judge erred in fact by ignoring evidence that parental substance abuse and domestic violence had ceased and erred in law by placing undue emphasis on continuity of care under s. 37(3)7 of the Child and Family Services Act while failing to properly balance other statutory factors, including cultural identity considerations for Indigenous children under s. 37(4).

The court held that no palpable and overriding factual error or legal error was demonstrated and that the trial judge had properly considered the relevant statutory factors.

The court found that the evidence regarding the harm of disrupting the long‑term foster placement supported the disposition.

The appeal was dismissed and no costs were awarded.