Ellen B. Murray

This is a costs decision following a child protection trial.

The respondent parents sought costs against the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto following a trial in which the court granted an order substantially in favour of the parents.

The father had a prior conviction for sexual assault and was diagnosed with pedohebephilia.

The Society sought an order removing the children from the home and restricting the father's contact to supervised access by someone other than the mother.

The parents sought an order permitting the father to remain in the home with supervised contact, based on expert evidence.

The court granted the parents' order with limited exceptions.

The parents claimed costs totalling approximately $24,700 each, arguing the Society acted unreasonably and unfairly in its conduct of the case.

The court dismissed the costs claim, finding that although the Society had made certain errors in judgment and failed to adequately reassess its position, the case involved complex expert evidence on which reasonable disagreement was possible, and the Society did not act in a manner that would be perceived as patently unfair or indefensible.

A youth charged with aggravated assault and possession of a dangerous weapon in connection with a stabbing incident on Yonge Street in Toronto.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including the defendant's presence at the scene, his flight from the location, his possession of the knife used in the stabbing (which bore the victim's blood), and continuous police surveillance.

The defendant testified that an unknown associate handed him the knife during the altercation and he ran with it before discarding it.

The court rejected the defendant's evidence as incredible and found the only reasonable inference from the primary facts was that the defendant committed the stabbing.

The defendant was convicted of aggravated assault and possession of a weapon dangerous to the public.

This is a child protection case under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act involving two children whose father, G.C., is a convicted child sexual offender with diagnoses of pedohebephilia and exhibitionism.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society sought an order removing the father from the home with only supervised access outside the home.

The parents sought to continue the existing arrangement where the father resides in the home during daytime hours but sleeps elsewhere at night, with the mother providing supervision.

The court found that the children could be adequately protected while remaining in an intact family unit with appropriate supervisory conditions, rejecting the Society's more restrictive proposal as unnecessarily disruptive to the children's best interests.

A child protection application brought by the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto against parents E.S. and F.S. regarding three children (N., M., and A.) who had been exposed to domestic violence during the marriage.

The respondent father brought a motion to dismiss the protection application, arguing that the Society had failed to establish grounds for protection and that the application constituted an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the father's motion and granted the Society's motion for temporary supervision with conditions, including that the father's access to the vulnerable child M. be subject to the child's wishes, while allowing unsupervised access to the younger child A. pending a full protection hearing.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a consent order from October 27, 2008, seeking to terminate both child support and spousal support obligations.

The respondent claimed the child no longer resided with the applicant mother and that he had paid spousal support for sufficient time.

The applicant opposed the motion and sought an increase in child support based on the respondent's increased income.

The court found the child continued to reside with the applicant and dismissed the motion to terminate child support, instead increasing it from $601 to $761 monthly.

Regarding spousal support, the court applied the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and found a material change in circumstances based on the applicant's increased income.

However, the court continued spousal support at $715 monthly (a decrease from $867) until August 1, 2018, recognizing the applicant's compensatory claim based on her primary responsibility for the child and the impact on her career prospects.

The Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion seeking an order placing a child in the custody of her maternal grandparents pursuant to section 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, with no access to her mother.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, arguing there were triable issues regarding the child's placement and access.

The court found no genuine issues requiring trial and granted the Society's motion.

The child had been apprehended following the mother's arrest for assault.

She was placed with her grandparents in British Columbia and received therapeutic treatment.

Electronic contact between the child and mother caused significant emotional distress, manifested in nightmares and behavioral problems.

The child consistently expressed that she did not wish to have contact with her mother or return to her care.

The court found the mother had not taken responsibility for her abuse, had not engaged in appropriate treatment for her mental health issues, and had engaged in abusive and threatening behavior toward the grandparents and service providers.

The court ordered custody to the grandparents with no access to the mother, subject to the child's future wishes.

Unmarried parents of a child born in Mexico brought the child to Chicago, Illinois in June 2015.

The mother left with the child in July 2015 and entered Canada, claiming she was fleeing an abusive relationship.

The father applied under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction for the child's return to Illinois.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the child had no habitual residence because the mother did not have a settled intention to reside in Illinois when she entered the United States.

Additionally, even if Illinois were the habitual residence, the removal was not wrongful because the father had no custody rights under Illinois law at the time of removal, and the emergency protection order he obtained was issued after the child had already entered Canada.

The applicant sought an order for state-funded counsel under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 7, for a child protection trial where the Children's Aid Society sought a supervision order.

The applicant's section 7 rights to security of person were engaged because the proposed supervision order would significantly restrict her parental role, force her to become a single parent, and subject her family to ongoing state intrusion.

The court found the applicant was indigent and ordered the state to provide counsel, establishing that section 7 protections extend beyond cases involving loss of custody to include highly intrusive supervision orders.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a summary judgment motion on a status review application seeking to place a child in the care of her grandparents pursuant to section 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The respondent mother challenged the court's jurisdiction to make such an order, arguing that because a section 57.1 order is deemed to be made under the Children's Law Reform Act, the court must satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of that Act, including that the child be habitually resident in Ontario.

The court rejected this argument and found it had jurisdiction to make the order, holding that the deeming provision does not restrict the court's authority to make the initial custody order and that the Legislature would have explicitly stated such a restriction if intended.

In a high-conflict family law matter involving custody and access of a minor child, the mother brought a motion seeking to eliminate the father's mid-week access, regulate access transfer locations, obtain police enforcement of access terms, recover child support contributions for extraordinary expenses, and strike the father's pleadings for non-compliance with disclosure orders.

The court granted a conditional opportunity for the father to comply with disclosure orders by December 22, 2015, dismissed the claim for section 7 expenses without prejudice, established specific transfer locations for access exchanges, declined to order police enforcement, and awarded costs of $750 to the mother for the disclosure non-compliance issue.

In a family law motion heard in the Integrated Domestic Violence Court, the applicant sought temporary custody of two young daughters with a 50/50 parenting schedule, while the respondent sought to maintain primary custody with supervised access for the applicant.

The court considered evidence of domestic conflict, anger management issues, marijuana use, and parenting capacity.

The court found that the respondent had been the primary caregiver and that the applicant had not addressed behavioral issues despite recommendations from child protection services.

The court awarded temporary custody to the respondent with continued supervised access for the applicant on the existing schedule, conditioned on the applicant's completion of a parenting program and abstinence from marijuana use with regular testing.

Child support was ordered based on imputed income, but no spousal support was awarded.

The accused was charged with threatening to cause death to the complainant on March 21, 2015, during a heated dispute regarding custody of their eight-year-old child.

The complainant alleged the accused threatened to kill her and bury her body so it would never be found.

The accused denied making any death threat, claiming he only threatened legal action.

The trial court found the accused not guilty, determining that while the accused intended to bully and intimidate the complainant, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a death threat was made.

The court found the complainant's evidence unreliable due to her highly emotional state, inability to recall exact words, and tendency to blur distinctions between threats of legal action and threats of death.

A 12-year-old defendant was charged with assault causing bodily harm after punching a 13-year-old complainant during a schoolyard altercation over a soccer ball, resulting in a dislodged tooth requiring extensive dental work.

The trial judge found that while the defendant intentionally applied force causing bodily harm, the complainant's consent to the fight could be inferred from the circumstances, and the defendant did not intend to cause serious harm.

The court held that consent was not vitiated by the bodily harm caused, and therefore acquitted the defendant.

A 17-year-old offender pled guilty to assault with a weapon and aggravated assault arising from a premeditated revenge attack on three individuals outside their home.

The offender, armed with a knife, participated in a coordinated group assault that resulted in serious injuries to one victim requiring two surgeries.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 90 days with 45 days of community supervision, followed by 24 months of probation, balancing the serious nature of the offence and the offender's significant participation against mitigating factors including no prior record, guilty plea, lengthy pre-sentence house arrest, and demonstrated rehabilitation efforts.

The respondent brought a motion to change a 2010 order terminating his access to his daughter.

The original order was made after a trial where the court found the respondent had engaged in inappropriate physical contact with the child, displayed extreme hatred toward the mother, and prioritized his own interests over the child's welfare.

The respondent sought to establish a material change in circumstances by arguing the child was older, he had other children, and the child wished contact with him.

The court found no material change in circumstances and dismissed the motion, noting the respondent continued to display the same problematic behaviors and attitudes that formed the basis of the original order.

A costs decision arising from a motion to change a child support order.

The respondent father sought to reduce his monthly child support obligation based on a decrease in income.

The parties settled the motion on March 31, 2015, with the father agreeing to maintain the original support amount until the child completed secondary school, while the mother abandoned her claim for past special expenses.

The court determined that the mother achieved greater success and awarded her partial costs of $3,000, finding divided success but favoring the applicant's position.

The father sought expanded parenting time with overnight access for his young daughter, while the mother opposed the expansion, citing behavioral concerns and the child's continued breastfeeding.

The court ordered overnight access to commence in August 2015, finding that a delay would allow the parties to work with a family counselor to improve communication and reduce conflict.

The court also awarded partial costs to the father for the mother's failure to timely investigate and disclose options regarding her Japanese residency permit renewal, which she had presented as an emergency requiring immediate travel with the child.

The applicant mother sought an order to strike the respondent father's pleadings based on his non-compliance with disclosure orders and failure to pay temporary child support.

The father had been ordered to provide comprehensive financial disclosure by July 31, 2014, but failed to do so despite multiple adjournments and cost sanctions.

He also failed to pay any amount of the temporary support order of $1,849 monthly made on November 3, 2014.

The court found the father's non-compliance to be deliberate and willful, but granted one final opportunity to comply before striking pleadings, recognizing the importance of allowing participation in family law proceedings.

Two unmarried parents of a two-year-old child each brought motions for temporary custody following their separation.

The mother left the family home with the child and went to a shelter for abused women.

The father subsequently retained the child without the mother's consent and commenced a custody application.

The court rejected the father's request for equal time-sharing and instead awarded temporary custody to the mother, with the father receiving alternate weekend access and two weekday evening visits per week.

The court imposed parenting rules governing decision-making, removal of the child from the region, daycare attendance, medical care, and substance use restrictions.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion to vary a temporary supervision order to compel a 15-year-old child to attend a special education program daily.

The child had been absent from school for three years due to serious medical conditions involving chronic urination, vomiting, and diarrhea.

The mother opposed the motion, believing home schooling was in the child's best interests.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the requested condition was not proportionate to any increase in risk, was overly intrusive, and was based on untested expert opinion.

The court was also concerned about potential emotional harm to the child if forced to attend school.