Gene Cary Colman

The applicant father sought parenting and decision-making orders for his two adult children, primarily to facilitate access to government benefits and Canadian citizenship for the children.

The respondent mother was self-represented and did not file an Answer.

The court, proceeding as an uncontested trial, dismissed the application, finding no jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act to make parenting or decision-making orders for adult children who are not under a disability and are able to withdraw from parental control.

The court also noted the applicant's failure to file a factum.

Rajeev Bhogal brought a motion for interim sole custody and child support for their eleven-year-old daughter, S, following the sale of the matrimonial home.

Prithy Jennifer Bhogal opposed, arguing the motion was premature given ongoing Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) involvement and due to contested affidavit evidence.

The court dismissed Rajeev's motion, finding it premature without OCL input and due to contested affidavit evidence.

Instead, the court ordered an interim shared parenting schedule as proposed by Prithy, pending OCL conclusions and a settlement conference.

A child protection case involving a four-month-old infant who suffered severe traumatic head injuries including subdural hemorrhaging, retinal hemorrhages, and brain damage.

The child was hospitalized after the father called an ambulance on October 2, 2015.

The Children's Aid Society sought a finding that both children were in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act.

The parents disputed the cause of injury, with the father's expert suggesting a chronic medical condition (subdural hygroma) with spontaneous rebleeding, while the Society's expert concluded the injuries resulted from traumatic head trauma inflicted or inadequately protected against by the parents.

The court accepted the Society's expert evidence and found both children in need of protection.

The Children's Aid Society of the County of Dufferin sought leave to withdraw a protection application concerning a child.

The respondent, a pediatric nurse with 17 years of experience as a foster parent, consented to the withdrawal but sought costs on a full indemnification basis.

The court found that while the Society did not act in bad faith, the decision to apprehend the child was an ill-considered use of the Society's powers that could not be justified.

The court awarded costs to the respondent for the apprehension hearing and the period leading up to the temporary care hearing, but declined to award costs for work undertaken after the Society's settlement offer on May 22, 2013, which was focused on adding the Toronto Children's Aid Society as a party rather than resolving the protection concerns.

The moving party sought costs following a successful motion for leave to appeal a decision of a motions judge to the Divisional Court.

Although the moving party was presumptively entitled to costs under Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules, the court considered that the ultimate value of the leave motion depended on the outcome of the forthcoming appeal.

The court noted that if the appeal were successful, costs of both the leave motion and the appeal would logically follow.

However, if the appeal were unsuccessful, the leave motion might ultimately prove unnecessary.

The court exercised its discretion to defer determination of costs until the appeal is decided.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a motion decision dismissing his request to strike portions of an application dealing with child support.

The application was brought after a French court had issued a final child support order concerning children now residing in Ontario.

The motion judge had concluded Ontario had jurisdiction to address child support and that Ontario was the most appropriate forum.

On the leave motion, the court considered conflicting authorities regarding whether Ontario courts may entertain an originating application for child support where a valid foreign order already exists.

Finding an apparent conflict between prior decisions concerning jurisdiction under s. 33 of the Family Law Act, the court held that the legal issue was unsettled and granted leave to appeal.

In a child protection proceeding, the parents brought a motion seeking full documentary disclosure from the Children’s Aid Society and the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.

Although the Society ultimately consented to the requested disclosure after the motion commenced, the court considered whether costs should be awarded against the Society.

The court held that while child protection agencies do not have immunity from costs awards, costs should only be ordered where the Society conducts itself unfairly in carrying out its statutory responsibilities.

The court found that the Society’s delayed and piecemeal disclosure required the parents to bring an unnecessary motion and risked delaying the trial in a case involving a child already in care for over a year.

Partial indemnity costs were therefore ordered against the Society.