Ellen B. Murray

The applicant father sought an order under the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction directing the return of his adopted daughter E. to Hungary after the respondent mother wrongfully removed and retained the child in Canada without notice.

The respondent resisted the application, invoking exceptions under Articles 13(b) and 20 of the Convention, claiming that return would expose the child to grave risk of physical and psychological harm due to persecution of Roma people in Hungary and the respondent's activism, and that the child's wishes should be respected.

The court found that the child was wrongfully retained, that the respondent failed to establish the Article 13(b) exception on the balance of probabilities, and that while the child expressed a preference to remain in Canada, this preference was influenced by the respondent and did not override the principles of the Convention.

The court ordered the child's return to Hungary.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a prior final custody order providing for joint custody and an equal week-about parenting arrangement.

She sought sole custody and supervised access for the father, arguing that ongoing parental conflict rendered the existing arrangement unworkable.

The court held that the applicant failed to establish a material change in circumstances as required by the governing test for variation of custody orders.

The evidence demonstrated that the parties' high-conflict relationship predated the original consent order and was foreseeable when it was made.

The child, represented by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, expressed a clear wish to maintain the joint custody and equal parenting schedule.

The motion to change was dismissed and the respondent was awarded partial indemnity costs.

A costs decision following a child support application.

The applicant mother sought costs of $33,006.67 after obtaining a decision on September 25, 2012 regarding child support for her son, retroactive support, life insurance coverage, and health/dental plan coverage.

The court found the applicant was successful on the retroactive support issue but unsuccessful on the life insurance claim.

The court rejected allegations of bad faith and unreasonable conduct by the respondent father.

The court awarded costs of $3,000 to the applicant, finding this to be a fair and reasonable amount in the circumstances, rather than full recovery of actual costs incurred.

On a family law motion concerning the matrimonial home, the respondent sought an order for immediate partition and sale, while the applicant sought exclusive possession and a delay in listing the property until the end of the school year for the parties’ children.

The court accepted that exclusive possession would remain with the applicant pending sale but found insufficient evidence that selling the home during the school year would cause harm beyond ordinary disruption.

Both parties faced financial pressures and neither could buy out the other’s interest in the property.

Balancing the financial realities and the limited evidence regarding impact on the children, the court ordered the matrimonial home to be listed for sale immediately.

The respondent brought a motion seeking a declaration that a family law application was not validly issued, a change of venue, and leave to file an answer.

The court held that any irregularities in the issuance of the application were merely technical and did not invalidate the proceeding.

The request for a change of venue was denied due to the respondent's failure to comply with a prior court order requiring financial disclosure.

Leave to file an answer was not granted immediately; instead, the court imposed a condition that the respondent first comply with the disclosure order within 30 days, failing which a further motion would proceed to determine whether leave should be granted.

The respondent brought a motion seeking various family law relief, including child support, in circumstances where the applicant failed to attend the hearing despite proper service and had repeatedly failed to comply with court orders and financial disclosure obligations.

The court declined to address issues relating to equalization and distribution of sale proceeds of the matrimonial home on the motion, indicating such matters should be determined at trial or following a motion to strike the applicant’s pleadings.

Using the most recent available income information from a prior tax return, the court calculated guideline child support for two children.

An order was made requiring monthly child support payments and issuing a support deduction order.

The order was made without prejudice to future claims for increased spousal support once updated income disclosure becomes available.

A summary judgment motion brought by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking a finding that two children were in need of protection and should be made Crown wards for adoption purposes.

The respondent mother opposed the motion; the respondent father did not file material.

The court found no genuine issue for trial on the protection findings or the disposition.

The children had been in temporary Society care for over 23 and 21 months respectively following apprehension due to a home invasion.

The court found the children at risk due to the father's involvement in a lifestyle associated with street-level violence and the mother's history of domestic violence, untreated mental health issues including depression and self-harm, and unstable living circumstances.

The mother's plan lacked detail and corroborative evidence.

The father presented no viable plan.

The court ordered both children to be made Crown wards.

In an uncontested family law trial following the respondent’s default and failure to participate in the proceedings, the court granted a divorce and addressed custody, child support, spousal support, property division, and related relief.

The court imputed income of $150,000 to the respondent due to his failure to provide financial disclosure and evidence of significant prior earnings from a chiropractic and orthotics business.

The applicant, who had been a homemaker and primary caregiver during a lengthy marriage, was awarded sole custody of the younger children, ongoing and retroactive child support, retroactive and indefinite spousal support, reimbursement of section 7 expenses, and costs.

The respondent’s interest in the matrimonial home was extinguished, with offsets applied against any potential equalization claim due to unpaid support obligations and costs.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment to recover outstanding indebtedness under a revolving demand credit facility extended to a corporate borrower.

Corporate and individual defendants had executed guarantees securing the facility.

The individual guarantors argued the debt arose from a new loan issued in 2009 and therefore fell outside their 2002 guarantees, asserting the original loan had been paid off in 2008.

The court found the evidence established the facility was never extinguished and that the 2009 agreement merely reduced the credit limit rather than creating a new loan.

Given the guarantees covered all present or future indebtedness, the guarantors remained liable and summary judgment was granted.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer brought a motion seeking an addendum to a prior decision making two children Crown wards, requesting an order for sibling access between the children at a minimum of once every two weeks.

The Children's Aid Society opposed the motion, arguing the court was functus officio and that an access order would impair the children's adoption prospects.

The court found it had jurisdiction to address the matter under Rule 25(19)(c) as an issue before the court but not decided.

The court granted the motion, finding both prongs of the test under section 59(2.1) of the Child and Family Services Act were satisfied: the sibling relationship was beneficial and meaningful to the child, and the access order would not impair adoption opportunities.

The applicant mother sought child support for her child born in 2000, including retroactive support dating back to the child's birth or alternatively to August 2008.

The respondent father had never paid child support and disputed the retroactive claim.

The court applied the framework established in D.B.S. v. T.A.R., considering the reason for delay, conduct of the payor, circumstances of the child, and hardship to the payor.

While the father's failure to pay support was blameworthy, the mother's unreasonable eleven-year delay in seeking support was a significant factor.

The court awarded ongoing child support of $835 monthly, medical/dental coverage, and a limited retroactive award of $14,000 payable in four annual instalments commencing January 1, 2010.

The applicant sought an order for unsupervised access to his child for six hours weekly.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing the child would be at risk of harm without supervision.

The court found that evidence suggested the applicant had a sexual interest in children and posed a risk of psychotic breakdown.

The court rejected the applicant's expert evidence as lacking independence and objectivity.

Supervised access was continued at two hours weekly.

The court also imputed income to the applicant for child support purposes and ordered monthly support payments.

An application under the Hague Convention for the return of a five-year-old child to Germany.

The applicant father sought an order that the respondent mother return their son to Germany after she wrongfully retained the child in Canada.

The respondent opposed the application, claiming that return would expose the child to grave risk of physical or psychological harm under Article 13(b) of the Convention.

The court found that the child was habitually resident in Germany, that the father held custody rights, and that the child was wrongfully retained.

The court rejected the respondent's Article 13(b) defences, finding insufficient evidence of domestic violence, that parenting competence was not relevant to a return order, and that the respondent's real motivation was economic and social rather than protective of the child.

The court ordered the child's return to Germany with undertakings from the father regarding interim support and the child's care pending German court proceedings.

This is a child protection trial under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society sought a finding that two children, J.B. (born 2004) and T.B. (born 2008), were in need of protection and an order making them Crown wards for the purpose of adoption.

The mother, S.S.B., opposed the application and sought return of the children to her care under Society supervision.

The court found both children in need of protection based on physical harm inflicted by the mother, risk of future physical harm, and risk of emotional harm.

The court ordered both children to be made Crown wards and rejected the mother's plan for return to her care, finding that the mother's long-standing parenting deficiencies could not be adequately addressed and that Crown wardship with a view to adoption best served the children's interests.

The plaintiff farmer raised wild boars and was told by the defendant City to remove them or face charges under an exotic animal by-law.

The plaintiff removed the boars, suffering financial loss, and was subsequently charged, though the charges were later withdrawn.

The plaintiff sued the City in negligence, arguing it failed to consider whether his operation was a 'normal farm practice' exempt from municipal by-laws under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act.

The City appealed the dismissal of its motion to strike the negligence claim.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it was not plain and obvious that the City did not owe a statutory or common law duty of care to the plaintiff.

The applicant brought a motion to vary a prior consent order seeking permission to relocate the children’s primary residence to the United Kingdom and to impute higher income to the respondent for child and spousal support.

The respondent opposed relocation and sought a variation providing that the children reside primarily with him if the applicant moved, while also requesting support be calculated based on his current income.

Applying the best interests test and the framework from Gordon v. Gertz, the court found the applicant’s reasons for relocation compelling, including immigration limitations preventing employment in Canada, lack of family support in Ontario, and available family and medical support in the United Kingdom.

The court accepted the respondent’s evidence that his current income was $135,000 and declined to impute income at the higher historical level.

The applicant was permitted to relocate with the children, subject to liberal and generous access arrangements for the respondent.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a child support order from 1995 requiring the respondent father to pay $250 monthly for their child.

The parties agreed to increase support to $558 monthly based on the respondent's current income.

The outstanding issues were the applicant's claims for retroactive increase to March 2008 and contribution to tutoring expenses.

The court granted a retroactive support award of $5,533 payable at $350 monthly based on the respondent's blameworthy conduct in underpaying support, but denied the claim for tutoring expenses retroactively and prospectively.

In a family trial addressing support and equalization, the court finalized an earlier interim judgment after receiving further evidence on valuation-day net family property calculations.

The court accepted the moving party’s revised RRSP valuation and explanation for prior inconsistent financial statements, and accepted the responding party’s stated separation-date debts and liabilities.

Using those accepted figures, the court recalculated net family property and fixed a higher equalization payment than in the interim order.

The court made final orders for ongoing monthly spousal support, annual reciprocal income disclosure, retroactive support, and the recalculated equalization payment.

The Society applied for an order of Crown wardship without access to allow a child born to two parents with cognitive limitations and mental health issues to be adopted.

The child had been in Society care since five days after birth due to unsanitary living conditions, domestic violence concerns, and parental inability to provide adequate childcare.

The parents sought return of the child or, alternatively, an extension of Society wardship with therapeutic access.

The court found that while the parents had made efforts to improve and had some strengths, they had not demonstrated adequate parenting ability over 21 months despite intensive support.

The court ordered Crown wardship but granted an access order, finding the relationship between the child and parents was beneficial and meaningful and would not impair adoption opportunities.

The four accused were charged with aggravated assault following an altercation with another inmate at a correctional centre.

The incident began as a consensual fight between one accused and the victim, but moved behind a partition out of view of surveillance cameras, where the victim sustained severe, life-threatening head injuries.

The Crown relied on surveillance video and the testimony of another inmate, but did not call the victim or other eyewitnesses.

The court found the inmate witness unreliable and the video insufficient to identify two of the accused.

Furthermore, the Crown failed to prove who inflicted the injuries or that there was a common intention to assault the victim.

All four accused were found not guilty.