Emily Chan

The applicant brought a motion for costs against the appellants, alleging unreasonable, frivolous, and vexatious conduct, as well as bad faith, resulting in unnecessary delays and expenses during an appeal of a zoning by-law amendment.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found no evidence to support the applicant's allegations of misconduct by the appellants.

The motion for costs was dismissed, and the appellants' request for costs for responding to the motion was also denied.

The appellant father appealed a summary judgment order granting his 18-year-old daughter child support and university expenses.

The daughter had withdrawn from parental control, and the central issue was whether this withdrawal was involuntary under s. 31(2) of the Family Law Act.

The appeal judge found that the motion judge erred in granting summary judgment because there were significant facts in dispute regarding the voluntariness of the withdrawal that required a trial.

The appeal was allowed, the summary judgment was set aside, and the matter was ordered to proceed to trial.

The interim support order was varied to account for financial contributions made by the mother.

A father appealed a declaration granted by the Superior Court that his 16-year-old daughter had withdrawn from parental control under section 65 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The father argued that he was entitled to be a party to the application and that the court should not have granted the declaration.

The Court of Appeal held that while parents must be parties to applications under Part III of the CLRA, the court retains discretion to direct the extent of their participation.

The court also held that the factors to be considered on such an application extend beyond the child's age to include the reasons for the declaration, its utility, and the child's best interests.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision to change a final custody order that had granted him sole custody of his two sons and required them to attend a reunification program.

The younger son had repeatedly run away and refused to live with the appellant or attend the program.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the son's extreme resistance constituted a material change in circumstances and that it was no longer in his best interests to enforce the custody order.

The court also dismissed the son's cross-appeal seeking a declaration that he had withdrawn from parental control, finding the motion judge's order that no person had custody or access rights over him was sufficient.