George Johnson

This costs endorsement arose from a family law contempt motion concerning non-compliance with prior orders requiring production of insurance documents and implementation of direct reimbursement for medical and dental expenses.

Although the court did not find contempt, it granted alternative compliance relief and held that the moving party was successful enough to attract costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The court rejected the argument that costs should be deferred, found the responding party's non-compliance unreasonable, and quantified costs by reference to hourly rates, time spent, proportionality, and fairness.

Costs of $3,088.97 were fixed and made payable forthwith with post-judgment interest, enforceable as child support.

The children's aid society brought a summary judgment motion in a Status Review application, seeking an order making the child a Crown ward without access for the purposes of adoption.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking to have the matter remitted to trial.

The court held that the two-part test for Status Review applications established by the Supreme Court of Canada continues to apply despite legislative amendments.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding the child's continued need for protection, the appropriate disposition of Crown wardship, or the termination of access, given the mother's longstanding inability to meet the child's physical and emotional needs and manage his behaviour.

The motion was granted and the child was made a Crown ward without access.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the order, noting the appellant had been in court when a previous order was made.

The appeal was dismissed without prejudice to the appellant's right to bring a fresh application.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking reimbursement for medical and dental expenses pursuant to a prior consent order requiring the respondent to submit receipts to his insurance plan and remit reimbursement.

The respondent challenged the claimed amount and argued that the order did not apply to receipts submitted prior to the date of the consent order.

The court held that there was a genuine issue requiring trial regarding receipts submitted before the order due to insufficient evidence of the parties’ intentions.

However, the court granted partial summary judgment for receipts submitted after the date of the order, finding no genuine issue requiring trial for those claims.

The Children's Aid Society applied for a finding that a 9-year-old child was in need of protection and sought an order for Crown wardship without access for the purpose of adoption.

The mother opposed the application, seeking return of the child, access if wardship was ordered, or a kinship placement with a relative.

The court found the child in need of protection due to the mother's history of substance abuse, violent behavior, and failure to provide adequate care, including exposing the child to squalid living conditions and domestic violence.

The court rejected the proposed kinship placement, finding the relative not credible.

The court ordered Crown wardship without access, concluding that access would not be beneficial and would impair the child's opportunities for adoption.

The parents appealed a trial judge's order making their child a Crown ward without access.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence to support the trial judge's conclusion that the child would be at physical risk in the parents' care and that Crown wardship without access was in the child's best interests.

The court also upheld the trial judge's finding that access would impair the child's future opportunities for a permanent and stable placement through adoption.