Ginette Alex Weisbord Williams

This decision addresses a request for costs brought by the father (K.D.) against the mother (P.D.) following a child protection trial.

The trial found the child in need of protection due to emotional harm caused by the mother, and custody was granted to the father.

The court applied Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, noting that the presumption of costs for a successful party does not apply in child protection cases.

While the mother's litigation conduct was deemed unreasonable and prolonged the trial, the court found it did not constitute "bad faith" under Rule 24(8) because her actions stemmed from a fixed belief related to a personality disorder, rather than an intent to inflict financial or emotional harm.

Consequently, the father was awarded partial indemnity costs, significantly less than the full recovery sought, reflecting the mother's unreasonable behaviour but not bad faith.

The Children's Aid Society of Peel brought a child protection application seeking a finding that a child was in need of protection due to emotional harm caused by the mother's actions.

The mother had made repeated unfounded allegations of sexual abuse against the father, subjected the child to numerous investigations and examinations, and created a high-conflict environment that caused the child serious anxiety and stress.

The court found that the child had suffered emotional harm as a result of the mother's pattern of making false allegations, repeatedly involving authorities, and pressuring the child to make negative statements about the father.

The court granted custody to the father with supervised access to the mother, finding that the mother's personality disorder and fixed belief system made her unable to recognize or change her harmful behavior.

This is a child protection matter under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The court determined that two children were in need of protection and granted custody to their half-sister J.P. and her partner A.E. This decision addresses the form and terms of access between the mother G.P. and her two children.

The mother sought frequent unsupervised access with rapid expansion to overnight visits upon negative drug tests.

The custodial caregivers sought supervised access at their discretion until the mother addressed her addiction and mental health issues.

The court adopted a staged approach to access, beginning with semi-supervised visits in public locations and gradually expanding over time based on demonstrated consistency, sobriety, and cooperation between the parties.

Motion by the respondent mother to appoint the Office of the Children's Lawyer to represent the interests of her daughter in an ongoing child protection application.

The child has been the subject of a protection application since August 2016, with allegations of abuse by the father that have been investigated and found unsubstantiated by multiple professionals.

The matter involves high domestic conflict between the parents and is proceeding to trial.

The court appointed the Office of the Children's Lawyer to represent the child's interests, finding that legal representation is deemed desirable under section 78 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, given that the child is not permitted to be present at trial and the competing positions of the parents cannot adequately protect her interests.

The Court allowed the appeal and held that proprietary estoppel can bind a promisor who lacked ownership at the time of the promise if the promisor later acquires a sufficient interest in the property.

The majority upheld findings that the appellant reasonably relied to his detriment on his sister’s promise regarding her eventual one-third interest in the family home.

The Court ordered relief tailored to the equity by permitting purchase of the sister’s one-third share at fair market value as of when the appellant would reasonably have expected to buy it.