Gerald Punnett

The respondent brought a motion for enforcement of a settlement agreement regarding retroactive child support and sought partial summary judgment.

The applicant opposed, arguing the absence of an enforceable settlement or grounds for setting it aside due to non-disclosure or unfairness.

The court found that an enforceable domestic contract existed, despite formal deficiencies, and that the terms were reasonable and the negotiation fair.

The motion for partial summary judgment for $150,000 in retroactive child support plus pre-judgment interest was granted, while the respondent's claims for payment from a family trust and compensation for mortgage expenses were dismissed.

The court emphasized that partial summary judgment was appropriate given the discrete nature of the settled issue.

The applicant maternal grandmother sought an order under s. 81(4) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA) to have her granddaughter brought before the court for child protection, alleging the child was not adequately protected in her father's care.

The court found reasonable and probable grounds to believe the child was in need of protection due to a pattern of neglect by the father and that court intervention under the CYFSA was necessary, as protection could not be adequately achieved through existing Children's Law Reform Act (CLRA) proceedings.

The court ordered that the threshold tests for a protection application were met, an Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) order be made, and the CLRA proceedings be stayed.

The respondent father brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the applicant mother's Motion to Change a final child support order.

The final order had imputed an income of $60,000 to the mother after she failed to attend the trial or present evidence.

On the motion to change, the mother provided new evidence regarding her unemployment, the loss of her insurance broker's license, and the loss of her driver's license.

The court found this new evidence was sufficient to raise a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding whether there was a material change in circumstances.

The father's motion for summary judgment was dismissed, but no costs were awarded to the mother due to her prior conduct.

The Applicant, Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County, brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the child J.M.C. was in need of protection and an order for supervision of the Mother with supervised access for the Father.

The Mother consented to the relief, while the Father opposed, seeking custody or alternative placement.

The court found the child in need of protection under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, citing ongoing parental conflict and the Father's history of domestic violence and anger management issues.

The Father's opposition was dismissed, and the court granted a six-month supervision order for the Mother and specific terms for the Father's supervised access, rejecting the Applicant's request for discretionary access.

The father brought a motion to change the temporary placement of his infant child from the Society to his care.

The mother opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion seeking placement with her.

The court found that the mother, who has developmental challenges, did not demonstrate a material change in circumstances since the previous order.

However, the father demonstrated a material change by consistently attending access, addressing substance abuse concerns, and maintaining a positive relationship with the foster mother.

The court granted the father's motion and placed the child in his care subject to the Society's supervision.

The father (D.R.) and paternal grandmother (C.L.) appealed a trial judge's decision regarding access to the children (K.R., S.R., C.R.) who were in the extended care of Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington Country (F&CS).

The trial judge had barred access for the father to two daughters, granted limited access to the son, and granted limited supervised access to the grandmother, making the children the access holders.

The appellants sought more liberal access, reunification therapy, and a stay of adoption proceedings.

The appeal court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the children remained in need of protection due to emotional harm risks, primarily from the paternal family's denial of sexual abuse allegations and lack of support for the children's trauma stories.

The court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings or legal principles, including the refusal to order reunification therapy without the children's consent and a detailed therapeutic plan.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The defence conceded the necessity of a blood demand and raised a Charter section 8 violation claim, which was abandoned.

The accused advanced a "last drink defence," arguing that her blood alcohol concentration was below the legal limit at the time of driving but rose to illegal levels by the time of testing.

The court rejected the accused's testimony regarding her alcohol consumption pattern and timing, finding it unreliable and inconsistent with her prior statements to police.

The court accepted the toxicologist's evidence that the accused's blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving was between 203 and 251 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts and stayed one count.