Gloria E. Ichim

The appellant, Randall Thring, appealed the imposition of a 20-year SOIRA order following his guilty plea to communicating for the purpose of obtaining sexual services from a person under 18.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in treating the SOIRA order as mandatory, but held that the order was still appropriate in the circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed, and the request for anonymization of the appellant's name was also denied.

The applicant mother appealed an order directing the return of her infant son to New York under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and sought an urgent stay of that order pending appeal.

The motion judge refused the requested stay, finding that the mother did not meet the onus to demonstrate irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience did not favour her.

The court emphasized the Hague Convention's mandate for prompt return and that delays frustrate its purpose.

The applicant father brought an application under the Hague Convention for the return of the parties' one-year-old child to New York State.

The respondent mother had removed the child to Ontario without the father's knowledge or consent.

The court found that the child's habitual residence was New York State and that the father was exercising his custody rights at the time of removal.

The mother opposed the return, alleging domestic violence and substance abuse by the father, arguing that returning the child would pose a grave risk of harm under Article 13(b).

The court held that the mother failed to meet the high threshold required to establish a grave risk of harm or an intolerable situation.

The application was granted, and the child was ordered to be returned to New York State, subject to certain undertakings by the father.

The parties separated after a 16-year marriage.

Most parenting issues were resolved prior to or during the trial.

The remaining issues for the court were the equalization of net family property and who should hold the children's passports.

The court ordered the applicant mother to hold the passports for the two children in her primary care, and the respondent father to hold the passport for their special needs child.

On equalization, the court found the applicant did not own a plot of land or a school in Pakistan, and that the wedding jewellery was jointly owned.

The respondent was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $63,981.73.

In a child protection trial under the CYFSA, the court found the child in need of protection based on risk of physical harm, risk of emotional harm, and the mother’s unavailability at the time of apprehension.

The court accepted evidence of serious, longstanding, and largely untreated mental health concerns affecting the mother’s ability to regulate conduct, cooperate with professionals, and make child-focused decisions, and also found unresolved risk arising from an adult child residing in the home.

Although the mother demonstrated strengths in housing, instrumental care, and positive access, the court held that neither return nor supervision was sufficient to protect the child because the requisite cooperation, insight, and reliability were absent.

A six-month interim society care order was made, with specified minimum unsupervised access for both parents.

The Children's Aid Society appealed a motion judge's order that required it to supervise a mother's access to her child.

The motion judge had granted custody of the child to the paternal grandparents under section 102 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that once a section 102 custody order is made, the Society is no longer a party to the proceedings.

Under section 34(2) of the Children's Law Reform Act, a court cannot order the Society to supervise access unless it consents, which it did not in this case.

The order was varied to provide for supervised access through a local access centre.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that a 14-year-old child was in need of protection, placement of the child with the father under a six-month supervision order, and access to the mother at the Society's discretion.

The mother opposed the protection finding and the access terms but failed to file responding materials.

The court applied the principles of summary judgment in child protection cases and found no genuine issue for trial.

The child was found in need of protection due to the mother's inability to meet his needs and manage his behavioural issues.

The court ordered the child placed with the father and granted access to the mother at the Society's discretion.

Following a review meeting in a family law proceeding, the court ordered the child to be placed in the father's full-time care immediately, adding a police enforcement clause due to the mother's ongoing alienating behaviour.

The court denied the mother's request for unsupervised access as she had not meaningfully engaged in therapy to address her role in the alienation.

The court also dismissed the mother's claim for undue hardship regarding child support, finding that the garnishment of her wages was for a costs order resulting directly from her own alienating actions, and ordered her to pay full table support.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of an appeal.

The Court of Appeal had previously awarded partial indemnity costs to the respondent father and the appellant's trial counsel, payable by the appellant mother.

As the parties could not agree on the amounts, the court reviewed submissions and fixed the respondent father's costs at $22,500 and the appellant's trial counsel's costs at $10,000, inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The court rejected the appellant mother's arguments for no costs or nominal costs, finding no circumstances to justify such an award, and noted that her offer to settle on different terms was irrelevant to the costs determination.

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 placing the child in the father's care under supervision.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking the child's return to her care and a trial.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the mother's failure to ensure the child's school attendance, her high-conflict relationship with the society and the father, and the resulting emotional harm to the child.

The court granted summary judgment, found the child in need of protection, placed the child with the father for six months under supervision, and limited the mother's access to written letters.

The mother appealed an order granting sole custody of the children to the father, which was issued after the trial judge concluded the mother had engaged in parental alienation.

The appeal challenged the finding of parental alienation, the terms of the custody reversal and access restriction, and alleged a lack of fair trial due to ineffective counsel and judicial bias.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's conclusions on parental alienation, the necessity of the custody order for the children's best interests, and finding no evidence of ineffective counsel or judicial bias.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs for several motions, arguing the respondent acted in bad faith and unreasonably by seeking to re-litigate a consent order shortly after it was made.

The court found the respondent's conduct was unreasonable but did not rise to the level of bad faith, which requires an intention to inflict harm or deceive.

The court also found the applicant's offers to settle lacked a true element of compromise.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $20,460.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful motion by the applicant for the return of the parties' children to Nigeria.

The court found the respondent's conduct in unilaterally removing the children from Nigeria was unreasonable.

Crucially, the court found the respondent acted in bad faith by presenting a purported travel consent document that was not authentic and by intentionally deceiving the court regarding the father's consent.

Despite this finding of bad faith on a specific issue, and the applicant seeking full recovery costs of $79,900, the court applied principles of reasonableness and proportionality, considering the overall nature of the proceeding (a motion, not a trial) and the respondent's ability to pay.

The court awarded the applicant $25,000 in costs, payable in monthly installments.

The father brought a motion to enforce a Nigerian custody order and seek the return of the parties' two children to Nigeria after the mother unilaterally moved them to Ontario.

The mother brought a cross-motion for temporary custody, arguing the children would face serious harm if returned due to country conditions and alleged past domestic violence.

The court recognized the Nigerian order under s. 41 of the Children's Law Reform Act, found the children were wrongfully removed, and concluded the mother failed to establish a risk of serious harm under s. 23.

The father's motion was granted and the children were ordered returned to Nigeria.

Following a successful motion for an interim parenting schedule, the applicant father sought partial indemnity costs of $7,771.87.

The respondent mother argued for a significant reduction or no costs due to her limited financial means.

The court considered the father's unaccepted offer to settle, the mother's financial situation, and the principles of fair and reasonable costs.

The mother was ordered to pay costs of $4,000, payable in monthly installments of $40.

The respondent mother brought a motion to change seeking sole custody of one child, Frederick, and arrears of child support.

The applicant father sought sole custody of Frederick and that the mother have sole custody of the other child, Theresa.

The court dismissed the mother's claim for child support arrears, finding that interim arrears do not survive a final order unless expressly addressed.

Regarding custody, the court found evidence of parental alienation affecting both children.

Given the lack of a concrete plan for reunification therapy, the court maintained the status quo for residency, granting the father sole custody of Frederick and the mother sole custody of Theresa, with specific decision-making authority for each child and ordered sibling access.

Costs were awarded to the father.

The applicant father sought an urgent hearing for the return of his two daughters to Nigeria, alleging wrongful removal by the respondent mother.

The court, operating under COVID-19 protocols, determined whether the matter was urgent.

Despite the father's claim of international kidnapping, the court found the matter not urgent due to global travel restrictions and the children's safety and well-being being protected by remaining with the mother in Ontario.

The court emphasized that the urgency determination was summary and without prejudice to the substantive motion.

The Children's Aid Society sought a temporary order to place the child M. L. M. in the care of her biological father, I. B., in Edmonton, Alberta, under terms of supervision.

This motion was brought in the context of a status review application following a final order for interim society care.

The mother, A. M., opposed the motion, while the father, I. B., supported it.

The court considered the child's best interests under section 74(3) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, including her views and wishes, developmental needs, cultural heritage, and the importance of secure attachment and continuity of care.

The court found that the discovery of the biological father constituted a material change in circumstances justifying a review of placement and granted the temporary order for placement with the father, with provisions for maintaining sibling and maternal access.

The plaintiffs and defendants both appealed a Small Claims Court decision regarding a residential tenancy dispute.

The parties lived in shared accommodation with ambiguous living arrangements that changed over time through verbal agreements.

The trial judge found that the plaintiff breached the lease terms and awarded the defendants $1,188.69.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings of fact and confirmed the judgment, dismissing all other claims.

The plaintiffs and defendants both appealed a Small Claims Court decision regarding a residential tenancy dispute.

The parties shared a residential premise with ambiguous living arrangements that changed over time through verbal agreements.

The trial judge found that the plaintiff breached the lease terms and awarded the defendants $1,188.69.

On appeal, the Superior Court of Justice found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings of fact and held that the law was correctly applied.

The appeal was dismissed and the trial judgment was confirmed.