Gloria Ichim

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 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.

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 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.

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 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.

The payor father brought a motion to change a 2012 child support order, citing a loss of employment and inability to pay.

The mother sought to impute an income of $25,000 per year.

The court found that the father had made reasonable efforts to find employment despite facing multiple impediments, including a criminal record and lack of mobility.

The court suspended periodic child support for seven months to allow the father to find employment, after which an income of $25,000 would be imputed and support obligations would resume.

The appellants appealed a trial decision making their two children Crown wards without access.

The appellants argued the trial judge failed to properly consider the mother's Aboriginal heritage, misinterpreted her 'flat affect', ignored positive evidence, and failed to consider less intrusive alternatives.

The appeal court dismissed all grounds, finding the trial judge made no palpable and overriding errors and properly prioritized the children's best interests, noting the parents' chronic inability to safely parent and the severe failure to thrive of one child.

The court also strongly criticized the systemic delays in the child protection proceedings, noting the children had been in foster care for over four years.