Dumoluhle Siziba

The respondent sought a final restraining order against the applicant and an order dispensing with the applicant's consent for the child's identification documents, citing a pattern of family violence.

The applicant denied the allegations and sought dismissal of the restraining order, proposing alternative contact restrictions or a delayed re-application.

The court found the applicant had perpetrated family violence, characterized by a cycle of abuse, and that the respondent had reasonable grounds to fear for her safety.

The court granted the final restraining order against the applicant, including restrictions on contact and proximity, and dispensed with the applicant's consent for the child's identification documents, effective immediately and subject to review after 36 months without incident.

The parties separated after a 10-year marriage.

The wife sought equalization of net family property, including the value of a multigenerational home registered to the husband and his father as tenants in common.

The court found the husband held his interest in trust for his siblings and himself upon his mother's death, meaning he had no beneficial interest to equalize at separation.

The court imputed income to both parties and ordered the husband to pay an equalization payment of $5,691, retroactive spousal support of $6,000, and ongoing spousal support of $462 per month for 10 years.

The wife was ordered to pay net child support of $17 per month.

A father brought a motion for temporary custody of two young children and supervised access for the mother, following the mother's admission of alcoholism and evidence of cocaine use during a binge in late April 2020.

The mother brought a cross-motion for sole custody or alternatively, no order at that stage.

The court found that while the case was in its early stages and credibility issues regarding domestic violence allegations remained unresolved, the mother's substance misuse and the concerning circumstances warranted intervention.

The court declined to make a temporary custody order but ordered that the children remain with the father on a temporary without prejudice basis, with the mother having supervised access only.

The court appointed the Children's Lawyer and directed that the ruling be sent to child welfare agencies due to concerns about the mother's parenting capacity and the involvement of a former addictions counsellor in a romantic relationship with the mother.

This is a summary judgment motion by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking an order placing a child born in 2017 in extended society care.

The mother opposed the motion and sought either the return of the child to her care with supervision or placement with a friend.

The court found that the child continues to be in need of protection and that the only viable plan in the child's best interests is extended society care with no access.

The mother's inability to address her mental health issues, manage her finances, maintain a safe home, and consistently attend access visits over 17 months demonstrated that the protection concerns that led to the child's apprehension had not been resolved.

The court heard competing motions regarding temporary access orders for a five-year-old child.

The father sought liberal and generous access including overnight weekend access, while the mother sought to eliminate overnight access and restrict visits to two separate eight-hour visits.

The court found that the mother had misled the court and the father about her residence, having returned to Ontario from Las Vegas months earlier without disclosure.

The court determined that overnight access was in the child's best interests and ordered a graduated schedule commencing with weekend access from Saturday noon to Sunday 4:00 p.m., progressing to alternating weekend access from Friday 4:00 p.m. to Sunday 6:00 p.m.

The court also granted the father information rights regarding the child's education, health, and welfare, and prohibited the mother from removing the child from Ontario without a court order.

A paternal grandmother brought an application for custody of and access to her grandchildren against the parents.

The application settled with sole custody to the mother on February 10, 2016, after the case was scheduled for trial.

This decision addresses the costs of the application.

The paternal grandmother pursued custody claims for nearly three years, from December 2012 until September 29, 2015, when she withdrew her custody claim.

The court found the paternal grandmother's conduct throughout the litigation to be unreasonable, rigid, and dogmatic.

The court awarded costs to both parents: $17,000 to the mother and $6,000 to the father, all-in (fees plus HST and disbursements plus HST).

The mother sought sole custody and permission to relocate with the parties' two-year-old child from Ontario to California.

The mother, a US citizen, had been isolated during the marriage and had no financial prospects or family support in Ontario.

The father sought sole custody but provided no clear plan and his evidence was found to be unreliable.

The court granted the mother sole custody, finding she was the primary caregiver and a better decision-maker.

Applying the Gordon v. Goertz framework, the court permitted the relocation to California, noting the mother's sound plan for financial self-sufficiency and the emotional benefits to both her and the child.

The court also dispensed with the father's consent for travel and government documents.

During a trial for robbery with a firearm and unlawful confinement, the Crown sought to have the jury instructed that portions of the accused's post-arrest statement were fabricated and could be used as circumstantial evidence of guilt.

The accused had admitted during his testimony that he lied to police about material facts, including his knowledge of the victims and perpetrators, out of fear of retribution.

The court held that the accused's own admissions provided the necessary independent evidence of concoction.

The court ruled that the jury would be instructed they could consider the fabricated statement as after-the-fact conduct supporting an inference of guilt, provided they rejected the accused's explanation for the lies.

The accused applied for an order requiring that an Urdu interpreter be provided at trial despite acknowledging that he spoke and understood English.

The court reviewed the constitutional right to interpretation under s. 14 of the Charter and the principles established in R. v. Tran regarding when interpreter assistance is required.

Evidence included the accused’s education and employment history in English-speaking environments and a recorded police interview demonstrating fluent English comprehension and responses.

The court found the accused had not established a real need for interpretation assistance and that the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities was not met.

The application for an interpreter at trial was therefore dismissed.