Evan Yee Hung Chang

The applicant father sought unsupervised parenting time, while the respondent mother sought a forensic psychiatric assessment of the father, supervised parenting time, and a restraining order.

The father's motion was adjourned due to non-compliance with procedural requirements.

The mother's request for a restraining order was dismissed as the court found no reasonable grounds to fear for her safety or the children's safety, noting the dated nature of the allegations and lack of recent concerning conduct.

The applicant mother sought interim child and spousal support, while the respondent father sought interim primary residence and sole decision-making for their four children.

The mother has a severe, ongoing drug addiction that resulted in multiple overdoses and CAS involvement.

The court granted the father primary residence and sole decision-making, finding it in the children's best interests despite the older children's preferences.

The mother's claim for child support was dismissed.

The court imputed the father's income at $103,000 and ordered him to pay interim spousal support of $550 per month while the mother remained in a family-owned property, increasing to $1,000 per month once she vacated.

This is a costs endorsement following a 12-day family law trial.

The trial primarily addressed whether the respondent stood in the place of a parent to the applicant's children and had child support obligations, and whether the applicant was entitled to spousal support.

The court found in favour of the applicant on all primary issues, rejecting the respondent's positions.

The applicant, as the successful party, was presumptively entitled to costs.

The court considered the respondent's "incredible" testimony, which prolonged the trial, and awarded the applicant substantial indemnity costs, reduced slightly for a withdrawn equalization claim.

The applicant sought child and spousal support following a 22-month cohabitation and marriage.

The central issue was whether the respondent stood in the place of a parent to the applicant's two children from a previous relationship, one of whom has severe autism.

Applying the Chartier factors, the court found the respondent demonstrated a settled intention to treat the children as his own.

The court ordered the respondent to pay child and spousal support for a fixed three-year term, reflecting the short duration of the relationship and the parties' reasonable expectations.

The applicant, CBC on behalf of the complainant Jessica Donald, sought to revoke a discretionary non-identification order made under Section 486.4 of the Criminal Code.

The order had been made by a Justice of the Peace on her own motion.

The respondent, Kevin T. Evans, opposed the revocation.

The court considered whether Crown consent was a necessary precondition to revoking the order and concluded that it was not.

The court found that the complainant's express intention to have her identity disclosed constituted a material change in circumstances, and that maintaining the order in the face of the complainant's wishes would constitute paternalism.

The court revoked the order as it related to the complainant while maintaining it for other identified witnesses.

The applicant sought spousal support, property division, and a restraining order following the breakdown of her marriage to the respondent.

The respondent claimed the marriage was a sham entered into solely for immigration purposes and sought a divorce and unequal division of net family property.

The court found the marriage was not a sham, determined the date of separation to be March 23, 2013, and resolved various property disputes including the valuation of a business, foreign property, and a disputed bare trust over a home.

The court ordered the respondent to pay an equalization payment and lump sum spousal support, and issued a non-communication order.

The applicant mother brought an interim motion seeking to remove supervision restrictions on her access to the child, obtain return of the child's passport, and secure child support.

The respondent father had previously brought a motion to change the 2011 custody order, alleging concerns about the mother's drug use.

The court found no basis for continued supervision, ordered return of the passport, and set child support retroactively for 2017 based on the respondent's demonstrated income from that year.

The court expressed concern about the parties' adversarial conduct and the impact on the child.

A child protection society sought a summary judgment order denying a father access to his seven-year-old daughter following his criminal convictions for serious offences against the mother, including sexual assault and human trafficking.

The father had been ordered supervised access by the Quebec Superior Court but the mother subsequently moved to Ontario with the child.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial regarding the father's access, including conflicting evidence about why the Quebec access order was not implemented, insufficient evidence about the impact of access on the mother's mental health and parenting capacity, and concerns about the father's lack of insight into his conduct.

The court ordered a focused trial on the access issue while placing the child in the mother's care subject to society supervision.

A summary judgment motion brought by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking Crown wardship for three children without access to their parents.

The children had been in cumulative care for approximately 2.5 years after being apprehended twice—initially in November 2013 due to chronic neglect, physical and emotional abuse, and exposure to domestic violence, and again in December 2015 after the father breached supervision order terms by allowing the mother unauthorized contact with the children.

The court found ongoing protection concerns, determined Crown wardship was in the children's best interests, and dismissed claims for parental access, finding that any access order would impair the children's adoption prospects with their foster parents.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault contrary to section 268 of the Criminal Code for an altercation with another inmate at Maplehurst Correction Centre.

The defence argued the fight was consensual and that any injuries sustained by the complainant were unintended and unforeseeable.

The Crown argued the accused was the aggressor and that the complainant did not consent to the fight.

The court found that the accused was the physical aggressor throughout, struck the complainant multiple times, placed him in a chokehold causing unconsciousness, and that the complainant fell face-first onto a concrete floor resulting in serious facial fractures.

The court rejected the defence of consent and found the accused guilty of aggravated assault.

A child protection trial concerning a young child apprehended at birth by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto.

The court found the child in need of protection under sections 37(2)(b) and 37(2)(g) of the Child and Family Services Act based on the mother's pattern of neglect, lack of insight, criminal involvement, and exposure to domestic violence, as well as the father's domestic violence history, lack of commitment to parenting, criminal record, and refusal to acknowledge protection concerns.

The court ordered the child to be made a Crown Ward without access, for the purpose of adoption by the father's sister who was already caring for the child's two older siblings.

The court determined costs arising from four prior family law motions relating to partial distribution of matrimonial home sale proceeds and disclosure obligations following the death of a spouse.

Although success on the motions was divided, the estate trustee was more successful on the principal issue concerning the release of sale proceeds.

The court considered Family Law Rules 24 and 18 governing costs and offers to settle, as well as the parties’ conduct regarding disclosure and litigation behaviour.

The estate sought full indemnity costs exceeding $45,000, while the respondent sought approximately $7,996.

The court awarded the estate $17,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST, structured with partial immediate payment and the balance deferred pending final resolution of the proceedings.

Following a family law trial where oral reasons were given, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant wife had unreasonably sought to deny the respondent husband access to their children, while the husband had engaged in financial nondisclosure and hid assets.

Furthermore, both parties had conducted their business and personal affairs in cash to evade income tax obligations.

Given the mutual misconduct, unreasonableness, and failure to make full disclosure, the court declined to award costs to either party.

Competing family law motions arose after the death of a spouse during unresolved divorce proceedings involving a challenged marriage contract, equalization, and support claims.

The estate trustee sought security for costs and disclosure, while the surviving spouse sought preservation of former matrimonial home sale proceeds and orders relating to inventory and valuation of property and business interests.

The court held that security for costs was not justified under Rule 24(13) because there was insufficient evidence that the claims were a waste of time or a nuisance, despite concerns about the spouse’s asset transfers and lack of assets in Ontario.

The court instead made detailed disclosure and case-management directions, ordered a business valuator selection process funded from sale proceeds held in trust, and reserved costs.

Following the breakdown of a marriage involving two children with significant developmental needs, the applicant sought sole custody, retroactive child support, spousal support, equalization of net family property, and related relief.

The respondent sought sole or joint custody, claimed arrears of child support, and disputed income and property issues.

The court applied the best‑interests analysis under the Divorce Act and ordered joint custody with substantial parenting time to each parent.

Income was imputed to the respondent at $60,000 due to unreliable financial disclosure and unreasonable business deductions, resulting in ongoing child support and spousal support obligations.

The court also determined the parties’ net family property and ordered an equalization payment after finding that transfers to the respondent’s mother were not legitimate loans but attempts to defeat equalization.

A costs endorsement following a custody and access trial.

The father sought full recovery of costs from June 29, 2012 in the amount of $5,186.60, while the mother requested no costs be ordered.

The court granted custody to the father with extensive specified access to the mother.

The court awarded costs to the father as the successful party, but reduced the amount to $3,600 inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, considering the factors under the Family Law Rules and the mother's limited financial circumstances.

The mother was permitted to repay the costs at $150 per month starting October 1, 2013.

The respondent husband brought a motion to set aside portions of an earlier judgment relating to equalization, property division, and obligations concerning the matrimonial home.

The prior judgment followed an uncontested trial after the husband repeatedly failed to comply with court‑ordered financial disclosure despite explicit warnings that non‑compliance would permit the wife to proceed without him.

The husband relied on alleged health issues, financial hardship, and potential factual disputes affecting the equalization calculation.

The court held that the evidence did not justify invoking Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules or the court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

Because the information relied upon by the husband was available to him earlier and his persistent non‑compliance demonstrated a lack of diligence, the motion to set aside the order was dismissed.

A motion for summary judgment brought by the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking Crown wardship for two children (D.H. and P.H.) and a custody order under section 57.1 for a third child (A.W.).

The children had been apprehended following disclosures of physical abuse and neglect by their mother.

The respondent mother and maternal grandmother opposed the motion, seeking placement with family members.

The court found no genuine issue for trial and granted the Society's motion, making D.H. and P.H. Crown wards and granting custody of A.W. to her father.

The court emphasized that the paramount purpose of child protection legislation is the best interests of the child, not parental rights.

The applicant sought temporary child support for two children (ages 15 and 9) based on an imputed income of $25,000 per annum for the respondent, with support to commence November 1, 2011.

The respondent, who was on Ontario Works, argued he could not afford to pay and that no income should be imputed.

He also argued he should not pay support for the older child as she was not in school.

The court found the respondent was intentionally unemployed, rejected his arguments regarding the daughter's entitlement to support, and imputed income of $25,000 per annum.

The court ordered child support of $375 per month for November and December 2011, changing to $373 per month from January 1, 2012, with arrears to be paid at $75 per month starting June 1, 2012.