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.

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 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.

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 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.

This is an appeal from a Superior Court decision dismissing an appeal from an Ontario Court of Justice order making a Crown wardship order with no access by either parent.

The child was apprehended at eight weeks old along with three older siblings due to expressed fears of violence by the appellant's then partner.

The child had been in the custody of prospective adoptive parents for approximately four years at the time of appeal.

The appellants sought to challenge the Crown wardship order and the no-access provision.

The appellants effectively abandoned the Crown wardship challenge and focused on the access issue.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence including a CAS worker's affidavit and video recordings of access visits, but also admitted an affidavit from Dr. Kathy Keefe regarding open adoption, though with reservations about its foundation and timing.

The Court upheld the no-access order, finding that the appellants failed to meet the statutory test requiring that the relationship be meaningful and beneficial to the child and that access would not impair future adoption opportunities.

A mother appealed a Crown wardship order made without access to her child.

She moved for interim access pending the hearing of her appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The child had been apprehended at eight weeks of age and remained in foster care for approximately three and a half years.

The trial judge found the child was in need of protection due to the mother's mental health issues, lack of insight into the child's needs, and exposure of the child to domestic conflict.

The Superior Court appeal judge dismissed the mother's appeal and found that continued access was neither meaningful nor beneficial to the child and impaired the child's adoption prospects.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for interim access, finding no substantial ground of appeal and determining that access was not in the child's best interests pending the appeal.

The appellant, K.F., appealed a Crown wardship order concerning her child, Z.A.F. The appeal raised issues of systemic delay in child welfare proceedings, alleged misfeasance by the Children's Aid Society, the standard of appellate review, the weight given to expert evidence (Dr. Amin's parenting capacity assessment), and access to the Crown ward.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error by the trial judge.

It emphasized that criminal law delay principles do not apply to child welfare cases and that continued access by the parent would impair the child's future opportunities for adoption.