Edwin W. Paget

The appellant father appealed a final parenting order that granted the respondent mother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of their four children.

The father argued the trial judge erred by relying on incorrect translations, failing to enforce shared parenting provisions in their domestic contracts, creating an unclear parenting schedule, and failing to ensure procedural fairness for him as a self-represented litigant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of translation errors, that the trial judge properly disregarded the domestic contracts under s. 56 of the Family Law Act as they were not in the children's best interests, that the parenting schedule was clear, and that the trial judge fulfilled all obligations to assist a self-represented litigant.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal from final orders of the Family Court, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The respondent sought $4,000 in costs as the successful party.

The appellant also sought $4,000, arguing the respondent's counsel acted unreasonably by making paragraph numbering errors.

The Divisional Court rejected the appellant's argument, finding the cited conduct did not justify depriving the successful party of costs.

The court awarded the respondent costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $3,000 to account for the appellant's limited financial circumstances.

The appellant father appealed a summary judgment order granting the respondent mother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of their 16-year-old child, with parenting time at the child's discretion.

The motion judge had found the father engaged in family violence and harassing behaviour, while dismissing his claims of parental alienation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's factual findings or application of the best interests of the child test under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order finding the child in need of protection and placing the child in extended society care without access.

The parents had a history of substance abuse, domestic violence, and failure to comply with safety plans.

The father consented to the order, while the mother did not file responding materials but attended the hearing, acknowledging her ongoing drug use and inability to parent.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, determining the child was in need of protection and that extended care without access was in the child's best interests to facilitate adoption.

The Children's Aid Society of Niagara Region moved for summary judgment to place a child in extended care without access under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The respondent mother had a history of inadequate care for older children, drug use during pregnancy, avoidance of prenatal care, and unsuitable living conditions.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding that the mother could not provide adequate care and that extended care without access was in the child's best interests, given the child's need for a permanent home and good adoption prospects.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order to place a four-year-old child in extended society care without access for the purpose of adoption.

The parents opposed the motion, proposing alternative plans of care.

The court applied the principles of summary judgment in the child protection context and found no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court determined that the parents' plans were not viable due to a history of domestic violence, substance abuse, and failure to utilize offered resources.

The court granted the society's motion, ordering extended care without parental access, but allowed access for the child's half-sister.

The Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion on a status review application, seeking a final order granting custody of two children to their maternal great aunt and uncle.

The children's mother and maternal grandmother opposed the motion, seeking custody or placement with supervision.

The court found that the children had flourished in the care of their great aunt and uncle for three years and that there was no realistic possibility of an outcome other than a custodial order in their favour.

Summary judgment for custody was granted, but the issue of access was directed to trial.