Dennis Apostolides

The respondent father sought an order to change the child's registered surname from the mother's maiden name to a hyphenated surname including his name.

The child was born during the parties' brief marriage and registered by the mother alone under the Vital Statistics Act.

The father argued that the mother's refusal to acknowledge him for registration purposes was unreasonable and that the court should exercise parens patriae jurisdiction to order the change.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Ontario Court of Justice lacks parens patriae jurisdiction and that even if it possessed such jurisdiction, the evidence supported the mother's decision not to acknowledge the father for registration purposes.

The appellant father appealed final orders regarding custody, access, and child support made by a case conference judge.

The father, who was unrepresented at the conference, had requested an adjournment to retain counsel, which was denied.

The case conference judge proceeded to make final substantive orders based on the mother's offer to settle and an Office of the Children's Lawyer report, despite the lack of consent or formal evidentiary record.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, holding that making opposed final orders at a case conference without proper evidence or procedural fairness constitutes a palpable and overriding error.

The orders were set aside and the matter remitted to the lower court.

A Hague Convention application for the return of a child to Latvia, brought by the father against the mother who fled with the child to Canada.

The mother and child were recognized as Convention refugees based on domestic violence perpetrated by the father.

The court found that while the removal was wrongful under the Hague Convention, the exceptions under Articles 13(b) and 20 applied due to the grave risk of harm to the child and mother if returned, the principle of non-refoulement, and the inability of the Latvian justice system to protect victims of domestic violence.

The application was dismissed and interim custody was granted to the mother.

The appellant mother appealed a child protection order declaring the child a Crown ward with no access following a summary judgment proceeding in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The trial judge had denied the mother’s adjournment request and proceeded despite her lack of counsel and late filings.

The appeal court held that, given the mother’s circumstances and the seriousness of permanently severing the parent‑child relationship, procedural fairness required granting an adjournment and allowing time to file an answer and parenting plan.

The record contained conflicting evidence regarding parenting ability, mental health, and access, raising credibility issues unsuitable for summary judgment.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant mother appealed an order of the Ontario Court of Justice making her child a Crown ward without access following summary judgment in a child protection proceeding.

The trial judge had denied an adjournment request and proceeded after the mother failed to file an Answer within the prescribed timeline.

The Superior Court held that, although procedural fairness was considered, the circumstances—including the mother’s lack of counsel, her efforts to obtain legal aid, and conflicting evidence regarding parenting ability and access—raised triable credibility issues inappropriate for summary judgment.

The court emphasized that credibility disputes and serious dispositions such as Crown wardship require careful procedural safeguards and, generally, a full trial.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The applicant brought an emergency motion for temporary custody of two young children following a recent separation and an incident that resulted in the applicant being removed from the matrimonial home by police.

The respondent opposed the motion on the basis that the matter was not urgent.

The court found urgency under Rule 14(4.2) of the Family Law Rules due to the abrupt separation of the children from their primary caregiver and the infant’s dependence on breastfeeding.

Considering the best interests of the children and the applicant’s role as primary caregiver, the court ordered that temporary custody be transferred to the applicant.

The respondent was granted generous access and further steps in the proceeding were directed, including an early case conference and financial disclosure.