D. Friend

The applicant father brought a motion under the Hague Convention seeking the return of the parties' child to Missouri, USA.

The respondent mother had retained the child in Ontario following a visit and argued that returning the child would pose a grave risk of harm under Article 13(b) of the Convention, citing concerns about the father's parenting and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found that the child's habitual residence was Missouri and that the mother had wrongfully retained him.

The court rejected the mother's Article 13(b) arguments, finding her concerns did not amount to a grave risk of harm or an intolerable situation, and ordered the immediate return of the child to Missouri.

The respondent brought a motion for the partition and sale of the matrimonial home, which the applicant opposed, alleging malicious, vexatious, or oppressive conduct and hardship.

The court found no such conduct or hardship related to the home and granted the order for sale.

The court also addressed spousal support, imputing the respondent's income at $85,000 due to incomplete disclosure and ordering temporary spousal support at the higher end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range, considering the applicant's disabilities and needs.

A father brought a motion to change a prior family order addressing custody, child support, and spousal support.

Two teenage children had moved to reside primarily with the father and expressed strong preferences to remain with him.

The court found the mother had unreasonably interfered with the youngest child’s relationship with the father and siblings and therefore ordered joint custody for the youngest child with primary residence to the mother, while granting the father sole custody of the two older children.

Child support was varied so the father paid support for only one child, and spousal support was ordered retroactively and prospectively with income imputed to the mother.

Detailed parenting time and financial arrangements were established.

Following guardianship proceedings concerning an adult alleged to be incapable of managing property, the court addressed competing claims for legal costs payable from the incapable person's estate.

Multiple parties, including family members, a private trust company, counsel for the incapable person, and the Public Guardian and Trustee, sought full indemnity costs.

The court considered whether the litigation was necessary to protect the incapable person's interests and whether each participant's involvement justified reimbursement from the estate.

While family members and required institutional participants were awarded their claimed costs, the private trust company's recovery was reduced due to limited evidence of its contribution and excessive hourly rates.

During a child protection trial under the Child and Family Services Act, the society brought a mid‑trial motion seeking to admit documents from another society’s file relating to a prior protection proceeding involving a different child of the respondent.

The court considered whether the documents qualified as business records under s. 35 of the Ontario Evidence Act.

Documents containing summaries of anonymous allegations and an agreed statement of facts from the earlier proceeding were excluded because they contained prejudicial hearsay and lacked reliability.

However, assessment and service plan documents prepared by a caseworker in the ordinary course of child protection work were admitted as business records.

The excluded materials could still be used for cross‑examination of the respondent.

The Children's Aid Society sought Crown wardship without access for two young children due to the mother's chronic cocaine addiction.

Despite completing a rehabilitation program and demonstrating good parenting skills during supervised access, the mother continued to relapse and use cocaine, as evidenced by multiple hair follicle and urine tests.

The court found the children in need of protection due to the risk of physical and emotional harm from the mother's substance abuse and lifestyle.

Concluding that the mother could not control her addiction in the foreseeable future, the court ordered Crown wardship without access for the purpose of adoption.