Dr. Worenklein

This decision resolves outstanding financial issues and costs following a partial settlement during a family law trial.

The court imputed income to the applicant for support purposes, determined proportionate shares for section 7 extraordinary expenses, and addressed claims related to the matrimonial home.

The respondent's claim for matrimonial home expenses was dismissed due to a prior separation agreement.

The court also made a costs order, finding mixed success on financial issues and ordering partial recovery costs, with a net amount payable by the respondent to the applicant.

The appellant mother appealed a final order granting Crown wardship with no access for the purpose of adoption of her child.

She argued the trial judge erred in finding the child was in need of protection, improperly applied expert psychological evidence, and placed undue weight on her mental health history and lack of cooperation with the child protection agency.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable or overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that Crown wardship was the only viable plan to protect the child and serve the child's best interests.

The Father brought a motion for unsupervised access to his two daughters, whose access had been supervised since June 2014.

The Children's Aid Society (CAS) proposed a discretionary, staged progression, while the Father sought a more rapid, automatic transition to unsupervised visits.

The court noted the Father's recent move, the lack of oversight in his proposal, and past issues with negative communication about the Mother and uncooperative behaviour with CAS staff.

The court adopted a structured, 10-week access progression plan proposed by the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL), with specific conditions for missed visits and ongoing oversight.

The court also provided suggestions for subsequent access stages, contingent on CAS approval of the Father's new residence and cohabitant.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa sought summary judgment for Crown wardship of the child K.T.B. with no access for the natural parents, J.T. (mother) and J.B. (father).

The motion was brought under Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules and sections 1, 37, and 57 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The court found that the Society met its evidentiary burden, and the parents failed to present a genuine issue for trial, demonstrating a lack of insight into the child's best interests, inconsistent access, and failure to address domestic violence and mental health issues.

The court granted Crown wardship without access, emphasizing the child's need for stability and permanence.

The respondent father moved for joint custody, increased parenting time, a relocation restriction, a custody/access assessment, and child support.

The applicant mother cross-moved for sole custody, reduced parenting time, permission to relocate, and child support.

The court declined to make an interim custody order, maintained the existing parenting schedule, ordered an update to the Office of the Children's Lawyer report instead of a full assessment, set child support payable by the father based on his 2015 income, and restricted the mother from relocating the child beyond a 15 km radius from her current residence without a further court order.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa sought a final order of Crown wardship for adoption for the child B. The respondent mother and father opposed, proposing the child be returned to the mother under a supervision order.

The court found the father had a history of domestic violence, lacked insight, and showed minimal commitment to addressing issues or exercising access.

The mother consistently prioritized her relationship with the father over the child's safety, lied to the Society, and failed to implement recommended therapies or parenting courses.

Considering the child's best interests and the parents' lack of commitment to rehabilitation, the court granted Crown wardship for adoption to the paternal uncle and his partner, with structured access for both parents.

The appellant father appealed a Family Court order granting the mother sole custody of their two children with supervised access to him, and allowing the Children's Aid Society to withdraw its protection application.

The father argued the motions judge erred in finding a material change in circumstances, hearing the matters simultaneously, allowing the withdrawal without a full hearing, and improperly relying on a section 54 assessment report.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motions judge properly applied the test for varying custody due to parental alienation, correctly exercised discretion to hear the matters together, held an appropriate hearing for the withdrawal, and did not improperly rely on the assessment report.

The applicant children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking Crown wardship for the purposes of adoption for two children.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, arguing that the society's evidentiary record consisted largely of inadmissible hearsay.

The court agreed, finding that the society relied heavily on hearsay evidence from various professionals and individuals without establishing the threshold requirements of necessity and reliability.

The court rejected the society's argument that the Family Law Rules or the Supreme Court's decision in Hryniak v. Mauldin relaxed the rules of evidence for summary judgment motions in child protection cases.

Concluding that it could not fairly resolve the dispute on the flawed record, the court dismissed the motion for summary judgment and directed the matter to trial.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment regarding a finding of need of protection, a 6-month supervision placement to the mother, and an order that the father's access be supervised at the CAS's discretion.

All issues except the father's access were settled.

The court found that the CAS established a prima facie case for continued supervised access due to the father's problematic behaviour, missed visits, and failure to complete an assessment.

The father failed to raise a genuine issue for trial.

Summary judgment was granted, ordering the father's access to be supervised at the discretion of the CAS.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection and an order for Crown wardship.

The child had been apprehended due to domestic violence between the parents and the mother's failure to protect the child from the father.

The court granted summary judgment finding the child in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act, noting the parents' history of conflict and the mother's lack of insight.

However, the court dismissed the motion for summary judgment regarding Crown wardship, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding the appropriate disposition, as the mother had made efforts to rehabilitate herself and raised concerns about the parenting capacity assessment.

Following the settlement of all substantive issues in a high-conflict family law dispute, both the applicant and the respondent sought costs of not less than $30,000.

The court reviewed the history of the litigation, the parties' conduct, and the numerous offers to settle exchanged regarding custody, access, spousal support, and property equalization.

Finding that neither party achieved their original positions, that both parties were responsible for the protracted nature of the proceedings, and that success was divided, the court declined to award costs to either party.

Following a ten‑day family law trial concerning custody and access of two children and an unsuccessful contempt motion, the court addressed costs.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs exceeding $69,000, while the respondent argued success was divided and requested no costs or set‑offs for prior awards and assessment expenses.

Applying the presumption under Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules but recognizing the court’s discretion, the court found partial success for both parties but greater success for the applicant.

The court rejected certain claimed costs, required the parties to share the expense of an expert assessment, and considered the potential financial impact of a costs award on the children.

A reduced lump‑sum costs award of $20,000 was ordered payable by the respondent.

The moving party mother sought an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal a Divisional Court decision confirming Crown wardship orders for her two children.

The children's aid society opposed the motion, arguing that the children had already been placed for adoption and that statutory provisions barred an extension.

The court declined to decide the jurisdictional issue but dismissed the motion on the merits, finding that the mother had no prospect of success on appeal because the proposed grounds involved factual determinations that had been fully canvassed by the lower courts.