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.

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testimony, which prolonged the trial, and awarded the applicant substantial indemnity costs, reduced slightly for a withdrawn equalization claim.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 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.

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.