Ellen B. Murray

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a summary judgment motion seeking a finding that Adam T. was a child in need of protection and an order for extended Society care.

The respondent mother, A.T.T., and respondent father, T.M., sought alternative dispositions, including the child's return to their care.

The court found Adam to be in need of protection due to the mother's chronic substance abuse, unstable lifestyle, and lack of candor, and the father's disengagement.

The court granted the Society's request for extended Society care, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial for a different disposition, and dismissed the parents' plans for care and access, except for supervised access for the maternal grandmother.

This is a status review application concerning a child in the care of the Children's Aid Society of Toronto.

The child was apprehended at birth due to the mother's history of substance abuse and failure to engage in prenatal care.

The mother sought return of the child to her care, while the Society sought an order for extended Society wardship with a view to adoption by the child's foster mother.

The court found that while the mother had made significant progress in maintaining sobriety and demonstrating parenting capacity during supervised visits, she had not yet demonstrated the ability to parent the child full-time without supervision.

The court ordered extended Society wardship but granted the mother monthly unsupervised access to maintain the relationship.

The applicant mother sought a court order permitting her to register her son in school in Toronto pending determination of the respondent father's Hague Convention application for return of the children to Michigan.

The respondent father opposed the motion, arguing the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction to make such an order.

The court dismissed the motion on jurisdictional grounds.

The respondent subsequently claimed costs of $6,513.43 on a full recovery basis.

The court declined to award costs to the respondent, finding that his refusal to permit the child to attend school in Toronto pending the Hague application was unreasonable behavior that served to punish the child rather than protect his interests.

The applicant sought permission to relocate her daughter from Toronto to Barrie to live with her fiancé, which would exceed the 40-kilometer limit specified in a prior consent order.

The respondent opposed the relocation and sought expanded access.

The court found a material change in circumstances and determined that the applicant had a strong probability of success at trial.

The court granted a temporary order permitting the relocation to Barrie while establishing expanded access arrangements for the respondent, including alternate weekends and potential mid-week visits.

The court declined to impose a police enforcement clause for access.

The applicant father sought to change child and spousal support terms of a 2013 separation agreement following his involuntary job loss in December 2017.

The respondent mother disputed the job loss and opposed the motion.

The court found the termination was genuine and involuntary.

Regarding spousal support, the court found the parties had agreed via text in April 2014 that support would cease upon the respondent's remarriage in February 2014, and the parties had acted consistently with this agreement for nearly four years.

The court rescinded arrears accumulated after April 30, 2014 and suspended prospective spousal support payments, but declined to terminate the respondent's entitlement to spousal support entirely without further evidence.

The court ordered the respondent to repay funds seized by the Family Responsibility Office.

For child support, the court found the job loss constituted a material change and adjusted support downward during the unemployment period, then upward upon the applicant's new employment at higher income.

The court also addressed section 7 expenses for the child's ballet lessons, establishing a fixed annual budget with proportional contributions based on the parties' respective incomes.

The applicant mother sought sole custody and retroactive child support, while the respondent father sought joint custody and child support based on a declared income of $12,000.

The court granted the mother sole custody, finding joint custody inappropriate given the parties' inability to communicate and differing values.

The court also found that the father was intentionally under-employed but declined to impute income on that basis; however, the court ruled that the father's non-taxable OSAP student grants constituted Guideline income and grossed them up.

Retroactive child support was ordered back to the date of effective notice, as the father's failure to pay any support since separation constituted blameworthy conduct.

A family law trial concerning custody, access, and child support for two children following the separation of the parents.

The mother sought custody, retroactive child support from January 2014, and permission to travel with the children outside Canada.

The father sought joint custody and offered to pay support based on declared income of $12,000 annually.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother with consultation requirements for major decisions, established an access schedule for the younger child with the father, and determined that the father's guideline income included non-taxable OSAP grants, resulting in significantly higher imputed income than claimed.

Retroactive support was ordered from November 2015 with arrears payable at $100 monthly.

In a child protection matter, the paternal aunt sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis against the Children's Aid Society, alleging that the Society acted unreasonably and in bad faith by failing to support her custody plan earlier than January 2018.

The Society had initially pursued a supervision order with the children remaining in the aunt's care, but later amended its application to seek a permanent custody order under section 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The court dismissed the costs claim, finding that the Society did not act in a patently unfair or indefensible manner and that it properly fulfilled its statutory mandate to assess competing plans fairly and with an open mind.

The applicant mother sought child and spousal support retroactive to the parties' separation on October 1, 2015.

The respondent father failed to comply with disclosure obligations and made conflicting statements regarding his income.

The court found that the father's income should be imputed at $100,000 annually based on his trucking work history and earning capacity.

The court awarded retroactive child support of $1,920 monthly commencing December 1, 2017, and $1,845 monthly from December 1, 2016 to November 1, 2017.

The court also awarded retroactive spousal support of $1,000 monthly commencing December 1, 2016, on compensatory and needs-based grounds.

Arrears were to be paid at $250 monthly commencing July 1, 2018.

This is a costs decision in a child protection case concerning a motion by the mother for expanded access to two children.

The mother was substantially successful in obtaining a court-ordered schedule for expanded and unsupervised access, though the order included provisos allowing the Children's Aid Society to suspend access if safety concerns arose.

The mother sought costs on a full recovery basis against both the Society and the father.

The court declined to award costs against either party, applying the established principles that child protection cases are exceptions to the presumptive entitlement to costs, and that neither the Society nor parents should be penalized for acting in good faith within the statutory framework.

A motion by a biological parent seeking an order requesting that the Children's Lawyer appoint a legal representative for an 11-year-old child in a custody and access dispute.

The child had been removed from the biological parent's care due to neglect and domestic violence concerns, and was subsequently placed with the other biological parent and their partner.

The biological parent sought custody or, alternatively, access.

The court declined to appoint a lawyer for the child, finding that reliable evidence of the child's wishes was available through therapeutic reports and that appointing a lawyer would cause additional anxiety to the child without sufficient offsetting benefit.

Motion by the mother for child support modification and spousal support entitlement and quantum.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion.

The court determined that the shared custody regime under section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines did not apply as the child had not been in the father's care for at least 40% of the time over a contiguous 12-month period.

The father's child support was reduced from $611 to $594 monthly based on his 2017 income of $63,963.

The court found the mother entitled to spousal support on both compensatory and needs-based grounds.

Income of $24,000 was imputed to the mother based on her failure to establish that reasonable health needs prevented her from seeking positions requiring standing.

Spousal support was set at $188 monthly.

Costs were reserved pending written submissions.

A motion brought by the father in the Integrated Domestic Violence Court seeking joint custody of the parties' young son and a 50/50 parenting schedule.

The mother opposed the motion and sought to maintain the existing temporary orders providing her with custody and the father with limited daytime access.

The court granted a modified temporary parenting order allowing the father overnight access while preserving the mother's primary residence, finding that the child's best interests were served by allowing both parents to participate in the child's care and decision-making.

A child protection case under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act involving two young daughters, Lucy and Sophie.

The children were placed in the care of their aunt, K.GU., following a crisis on January 20, 2016, when the mother, K.M., became emotionally dysregulated.

The Society sought a custody order placing the children with K.GU.

The mother sought return of the children to her care with Society supervision.

The court found that the children were in need of protection due to the mother's mental health concerns, ongoing conflict between the parents, failure to follow professional recommendations, and past marijuana use.

The court determined that placement with K.GU. was in the children's best interests, given the mother's persistent failure to address protection concerns, her inability to manage extended visits with the children, and the stability and continuity provided by K.GU.'s care.

The court granted a custody order to K.GU. with specified access to the mother and father.

A motion concerning the temporary care of three children under the Child and Family Services Act.

The respondent parents sought the return of two children (Charles and Thomas) from Society care, while the Society sought Crown wardship for those children and Society wardship for a third child (Charlotte) born prematurely during the proceedings.

The court applied the test under section 51(2) and (3) of the Act, finding that immediate risks to Charles and Thomas could be managed through intensive Society supervision and imposed conditions.

Charlotte remained in temporary Society care due to her fragility and the parents' inability to manage three young children simultaneously.

The accused was charged with five offences arising from an armed robbery: two counts of robbery with a firearm, pointing a firearm, disguise with intent to commit an indictable offence, and threatening death.

The Crown's case rested entirely on eyewitness identification of the accused as the gunman.

The court found the identification evidence unreliable due to numerous frailties including the brief duration of observation, the shock and fear experienced by witnesses, the concealment of identifying features by clothing and a bandana, the minimal words spoken by the gunman, claims of voice disguise, and contamination of the identification process through pre-police discussion among witnesses.

The court acquitted the accused on all charges.

The applicant brought a contempt motion against the respondent for alleged violations of a parenting order issued on July 31, 2017.

The court found the respondent guilty of one instance of contempt for deliberately overholding the child for one week beyond the ordered access period in August 2017.

The court rejected the applicant's allegations of further contempt, finding that the respondent's subsequent conduct either complied with the order or involved ambiguities in the order's interpretation that did not constitute clear violations.

The court imposed a penalty of a $500 charitable donation rather than a monetary fine or imprisonment.

Two young persons were charged with robbery and assault arising from an incident in a mall parking lot.

The defendant J.G.B. admitted to punching the complainant multiple times but claimed self-defence.

The court found that while there was an air of reality to the self-defence claim, the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not acting in self-defence.

The defendant had sought out the complainant with associates to confront him over an alleged prior wrong, initiated the physical confrontation, and used disproportionate force.

The defendant was convicted of assault causing bodily harm.

The robbery charges were dismissed as the Crown could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt which defendant took the phone or that theft was the purpose of the attack.

A youth was charged with six offences relating to possession of a loaded prohibited firearm (.357 Smith and Wesson Magnum revolver) found hidden in a pillow in the basement games room of his residence.

The Crown alleged constructive possession based on circumstantial evidence, including the defendant's control of the games room, the presence of ammunition and clothing from suspects in his bedroom, and the defendant's admission of the suspects to the home following a violent robbery.

The defence argued that while the defendant may have allowed suspects to store some evidence in his bedroom, there were reasonable alternative inferences that the firearm was hidden without his knowledge, either by one of the suspects during the extended time they spent in the home or by a suspect at the moment police arrived.

The court found that while the evidence was highly suspicious and could support an inference of guilt, reasonable alternative inferences existed when the totality of the evidence was considered, including the possibility that a suspect hid the firearm without the defendant's knowledge.

The respondent father brought a motion for unsupervised overnight access to his two young daughters on alternate weekends and sought to terminate his child support obligation and rescind arrears, claiming his detention and strict bail conditions prevented him from working.

The applicant mother opposed and cross-moved for no access pending receipt of evidence from the Children's Aid Society and the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The mother alleged a pattern of domestic violence, including forcible confinement and assault during a four-day period in June 2017.

The court found the allegations sufficiently concerning and ordered supervised access once weekly for two hours through the Children's Aid Society, pending further evidence.

The court rejected the respondent's request to terminate child support, finding evidence that he owned and controlled a substantial international shipping company with significant income available to him, inconsistent with his claim of minimum wage employment.