Ellen B. Murray

This is a status review application under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act concerning a child apprehended at birth due to parental substance abuse and domestic violence.

The mother sought to have the child returned to her care under Society supervision, while the Society sought an order of Crown wardship with a view to adoption by the child's long-term foster parents.

The court found that while the mother had made significant progress in addressing her addiction and mental health issues, the durability of her plan remained uncertain due to limited personal supports and a history of relapse.

The court ordered Crown wardship, finding that the child's best interests required permanency and stability.

Access to the mother was ordered at the Society's discretion with a minimum of once per month.

Access to the father was denied due to inconsistent contact and failure to demonstrate a beneficial and meaningful relationship with the child.

A child protection agency brought a motion for summary judgment on a status review application concerning a child found to be in need of protection due to parental conflict.

The respondent father opposed the motion and sought a full trial.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring trial.

The evidence established that the child remained at risk due to ongoing conflict, the father had not had contact with the child in over three years, and the father refused to agree to basic behavioral conditions necessary for supervised access to resume.

The court ordered the child remain in the mother's care under agency supervision with access to the father at the agency's discretion.

The respondent brought a motion to change a final custody and access order, seeking supervised access to his daughter after being denied access for approximately three years.

The respondent had been convicted of sexual assault of a child in 2010 and was subject to a prohibition order restricting contact with minors.

The applicant opposed the motion, arguing there had been no material change in circumstances.

The court found that the respondent failed to establish a material change in circumstances relevant to access, as his circumstances remained substantially unchanged—he continued to be diagnosed as a likely pedophile, remained subject to the prohibition order, had undergone no treatment, and his only change was a change of mind.

The court rejected the respondent's claim that the applicant had agreed to allow unsupervised access in violation of the court order, finding his credibility questionable.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant sought custody and child support for a minor child, with retroactive support dating to 2012.

The respondent sought joint custody and weekend access, and opposed the retroactive support claim.

The respondent failed to provide adequate financial disclosure despite two court orders and multiple extensions.

The court declined to strike the respondent's pleadings but drew adverse inferences from the missing disclosure, finding the respondent was intentionally underemployed.

The court imputed income based on the respondent's average earnings from his last three years of employment and ordered temporary child support of $855 monthly commencing January 1, 2017.

Application for child and spousal support following separation.

The applicant, a former homemaker, sought child support and spousal support from the respondent, a roofer.

The court determined the parties' incomes for support purposes, finding the respondent's income should be based on current earnings rather than a three-year average that included an anomalous high-income year.

The applicant's income was determined based on her full-time employment only, as she was justified in relinquishing secondary employment to spend time with the child.

The court ordered retroactive child support from the date of separation and prospective spousal support at the upper end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range, based on both compensatory and needs-based grounds.

This is a costs decision arising from a motion to change a separation agreement regarding spousal and child support.

The respondent (former husband) sought to reduce his support obligations, claiming his income had substantially decreased.

The applicant (former wife) sought disclosure of the respondent's corporate interests and related financial information.

The respondent initially refused disclosure citing privacy concerns of other shareholders.

The court found the disclosure request reasonable and relevant to assessing the respondent's resources and ability to pay support.

The respondent ultimately agreed to provide disclosure subject to a confidentiality agreement.

The court awarded costs of $3,000 inclusive of HST to the applicant, finding the disclosure should not have taken 18 months to obtain and that the applicant's legal work was considerable.

The applicant mother sought to increase child support from $311 monthly to $650 monthly based on an imputed income of $71,300 for the respondent father, a self-employed contractor.

The respondent opposed the increase and argued his income was accurately reflected in his tax returns.

The court found that the respondent had unreported income based on discrepancies between bank deposits and reported gross income, as well as evidence of debt repayment inconsistent with his claimed income.

The court imputed annual income of $71,114 to the respondent and ordered child support of $648 monthly commencing April 1, 2015, with arrears to be paid at $100 monthly.

The applicant sought costs against a former lawyer for the respondent in a family law matter concerning custody of a child.

The applicant claimed the lawyer should have notified him that he was no longer representing the respondent and should have either ensured a Notice of Change in Representation was filed or brought a motion to be removed as solicitor of record.

The applicant argued this would have allowed him to arrange an adjournment in advance and avoid wasting legal fees.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the lawyer's conduct fell short of professional standards, it did not cause the costs to be incurred without reasonable cause.

The adjournment was caused by the respondent's failure to prepare for the conference, not the lawyer's actions or omissions.

A mother sought to have her two young children returned to her care under child protection supervision, or alternatively for generous access.

The children had been apprehended following allegations of physical assault by the mother.

The mother was charged criminally and subject to bail conditions prohibiting contact with the children.

The Society opposed access pending completion of a trauma assessment, citing the need to "better understand what is going on." The court ordered supervised access of a minimum of two hours twice weekly, finding that complete separation from the primary caregiver for over six months posed risks of emotional harm and that supervised access could protect the children while maintaining their only significant family tie.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion to transfer a child protection case involving four children to Native Child and Family Services (NCFS) based on the grandmother's claim of Metis heritage.

The court found that while it had implied jurisdiction to order such a transfer to accomplish the statutory purpose of recognizing Aboriginal heritage in child protection proceedings, the motion was dismissed because the transfer would cause unacceptable delay and disruption at an advanced stage of the case.

The court treated the children as Aboriginal for purposes of the proceeding and noted that the Society could still provide culturally appropriate services while retaining the case.

The applicant mother sought to change the child support provisions of a separation agreement, requesting that the respondent father pay the full table amount of child support and his proportionate share of special or extraordinary expenses for the children's hockey and other activities.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing that the separation agreement required the applicant to pay 100% of special expenses and that he had not agreed in writing to any such expenses.

The court found material changes in circumstances, including a substantial decrease in the applicant's income and a significant increase in the children's extraordinary expenses.

The court ordered the respondent to contribute 40% of a reasonable amount for sports and extracurricular activities, along with a contribution to orthodontic expenses and a retroactive payment for prior years.

The offender pleaded guilty to assault, assault with a weapon, and being unlawfully in a dwelling house following an incident on June 25, 2015, where he broke into his former partner's apartment and attacked her and her boyfriend with his fists and a knife.

The Crown sought 90 days custody plus two years probation; the defence sought a suspended sentence with probation.

The court imposed 30 days intermittent custody followed by two years probation, emphasizing that despite the offender's remorse, successful completion of counselling, and lack of prior record, the principles of general deterrence and denunciation required a custodial sentence for domestic violence offences.

The respondent father sought to vary a child support order made on consent on November 27, 2013, which imputed his annual income at $120,000.

He sought retroactive variation to January 1, 2014, based on his declared income as shown on his tax returns for 2014 ($43,813) and 2015 ($48,533).

The applicant mother opposed the motion.

The court found that the respondent had not established a material change in circumstances since the consent order.

The respondent continued in the same business and his new accountants still relied solely on information provided by him.

The court dismissed the motion to change with respect to the child support amount, finding that the respondent's reliance on declared income did not overcome the basis for the original imputation.

This is a costs decision following the dismissal of a motion to change a child support order.

The applicant sought to reduce his support obligation retroactively within six months of entering into a non-variable support agreement.

The respondent, entirely successful on the motion, claimed costs of $8,132.19, including both out-of-pocket expenses and compensation for time spent on legal work at $250 per hour.

The court awarded $2,500 in costs, considering the respondent's complete success, the applicant's highly unreasonable litigation behaviour, the quality of the respondent's legal work, and the appropriate level of indemnification for a self-represented litigant.

The respondent sought to change child support provisions in a separation agreement based on claimed changes in income.

The parties shared custody of two children and had agreed to child support of $300 monthly plus 58% of special expenses.

The respondent sought retroactive relief dating back to 2013, claiming lower income figures.

The court found that while current income figures justified a modest reduction in support going forward, retroactive relief was not appropriate given the respondent's conduct, including a period of non-payment and failure to provide proper notice and disclosure to the applicant.

A costs decision following a motion to change child support.

The applicant sought costs of $208,728.79 based on success in the motion and an unaccepted settlement offer.

The respondent argued for divided success and a reduced costs award.

The court found the respondent acted in bad faith through non-compliance with support orders, concealment of assets, incomplete disclosure, and failure to make a settlement offer.

The court awarded costs on a full recovery basis but applied a reasonableness test to the quantum, ordering the respondent to pay $63,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant sought to vary a child support order made by consent on November 4, 2015, which provided that child support would be non-variable before November 4, 2017.

The applicant claimed a material change in circumstances based on loss of a major contract and a knee injury that temporarily restricted his work capacity.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing that the non-variability clause precluded the motion and that no material change had been established.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the parties had contemplated possible income fluctuations when they agreed to the non-variability provision, and that the applicant's circumstances fell within the scope of events the parties had contemplated at the time of the order.

The respondent sought to vary child support orders made by the Hong Kong court, alleging a material change in circumstances following his termination from employment.

The applicant opposed the variation and sought to impute income to the respondent based on his failure to disclose and his underutilization of substantial capital assets.

The court found a material change in circumstances warranting variation but declined retroactive relief.

The court imputed employment income of $67,500 annually and notional investment income at 2% on the respondent's capital.

For 2014-2015, the court averaged the respondent's income at $438,205 annually (including undeclared foreign exchange gains), resulting in table support of $5,297 monthly plus 70% of private school fees.

For 2016 onward, support was reduced to $1,493 monthly based on imputed income of $106,804 annually.

The court ordered security for future support payments and dismissed the respondent's request for an order directing the children to attend public school.

The accused was charged with threatening his former spouse with death on January 17, 2016.

The Crown's only evidence was the testimony of the complainant, who described an angry phone call and subsequent confrontation in her apartment building lobby during a child exchange.

The accused made the statement "What's not okay is you're not going to live to see your next birthday." The court found the complainant to be a credible and reliable witness and accepted her evidence.

The court applied the objective test for threats under the Criminal Code, considering the context of prior conflict between the parties and the complainant's reasonable fear.

The accused was found guilty of uttering a threat to cause death.

A 14-year-old girl pleaded guilty to aggravated assault after stabbing an 18-year-old victim in the thigh during a street altercation, causing serious physical and psychological injuries including damage to the victim's femoral artery.

The Crown sought the maximum two-year custodial sentence, while the defence sought time served plus probation.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 10 months custody and supervision (6 months net after pre-sentence custody credit) followed by 13 months of probation, with the offender to remain in secure custody at Syl Apps.

The court found that despite the offender's youth, genuine remorse, and lack of prior record, a custodial disposition was necessary to provide the highly structured environment and access to treatment required for her rehabilitation, given her history of inadequate parental supervision, anger management issues, and non-compliance with bail conditions.