Dr. Ricciardi

The appellant mother, A.T., brought a motion to extend the time for filing an appeal against protection orders issued by the trial judge concerning her two children, A.T-W. and N.T. The trial judge had found the children in need of protection due to the mother's unfounded allegations of sexual abuse, mental health issues, and breaches of a supervision order, placing them with their respective fathers.

The motion judge applied the four-factor test for extending time for appeal: reasonable explanation for delay, prejudice to the respondent, merits of the appeal, and the justice of the case, with the children's best interests being paramount.

While the mother provided a reasonable explanation for the delay as a self-represented litigant dealing with a two-part judgment, the court found the appeal lacked merit and that allowing it would cause prejudice to the respondents and be contrary to the children's best interests by prolonging litigation.

The motion to extend time was dismissed.

A 16-year-old youth was found guilty after trial of aggravated assault as a party to the offence.

The victim, a 15-year-old, was viciously beaten by multiple youth, suffering a traumatic brain injury with subdural hematoma, brain bleed, vision loss, and permanent psychological effects.

The accused did not directly participate in the physical violence but actively encouraged and facilitated the assault through words, gestures, and conduct.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 180 days (120 days open custody, 60 days community supervision) followed by 6 months' probation, rejecting both the Crown's request for 9 months' custody and the defence's request for probation or deferred custody.

The mother appealed a 2011 order finding her in contempt and a 2013 order reversing custody of the parties' three children to the father and limiting her access.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part.

The contempt finding was set aside because the interim orders allegedly breached had been superseded by Minutes of Settlement.

The court found the trial judge erred in relying on the Child and Family Services Act and parens patriae jurisdiction, but upheld the decision to reverse custody based on the trial judge's finding of emotional abuse by the mother.

However, the court found the trial judge erred by not setting a fixed timeframe for an access review.

The court ordered a review of access arrangements and increased the mother's access in the interim.

Costs payable by the mother for the proceedings below were reduced from $400,000 to $200,000.

A kinship care provider sought to be added as a party respondent to a child protection proceeding and requested disclosure of a parenting capacity assessment.

The child, diagnosed with hydrocephalus, had been placed in the kinship care provider's home since 12 days old.

The Society and biological parents had reached a settlement agreement to return the child to parental care with supervision.

The court determined that kinship care placements are akin to foster care placements and that the kinship care provider, having continuously cared for the child, was entitled to enhanced participation rights under the Child and Family Services Act.

Rather than adding the provider as a full party, the court granted enhanced participation rights including disclosure of key documents and participation in settlement conferences.

The court determined costs following a lengthy custody and access dispute where the applicant mother was found to have emotionally abused the children and engaged in severe parental alienation against the respondent father.

The court found the mother acted in bad faith throughout the proceedings, litigating with impunity to excise the father from the children's lives.

Applying Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules, the court awarded the successful father full recovery costs fixed at $400,000.

Following two family law trials concerning custody and access of three children, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The court had previously found the mother in contempt of an access order and concluded that she acted in bad faith by emotionally manipulating the children and undermining their relationship with their father.

The father was successful at both the original trial and the subsequent review.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and considering the mother’s bad faith litigation conduct, the court ordered full recovery costs.

The mother was required to pay a substantial costs award reflecting extensive legal work and professional involvement necessitated by the litigation.

This was a review of a 2011 supervised custody order that had placed the children in the mother's custody subject to strict conditions to repair their relationship with their father.

The court found that the mother failed to comply with the order and continued to emotionally abuse the children by fostering a distorted, fearful reality of their father, amounting to severe parental alienation.

Relying on surreptitious audio recordings and CAS reports, the court concluded the children remained in need of protection.

Sole custody was transferred to the father, and the mother was restricted to supervised access during therapy sessions.