Who is Justice Henry Vogelsang?

Justice Henry Vogelsang is an Ontario judge at the Superior Court of Justice with 42 decisions on record from 2012 to 2018. Key areas include family and matrimonial law, civil litigation - defendant, civil litigation - plaintiff.

What court does Justice Henry Vogelsang sit in?

Justice Henry Vogelsang has sat at Superior Court of Justice and Ontario Divisional Court.

What areas of law does Justice Henry Vogelsang specialize in?

Justice Henry Vogelsang's most common areas include Family and Matrimonial Law (38 cases), Civil Litigation - Defendant (5 cases), Civil Litigation - Plaintiff (3 cases). Justice Henry Vogelsang has handled 42 cases across 5 practice areas.

How many cases has Justice Henry Vogelsang decided?

Justice Henry Vogelsang has 42 reported decisions from 2012 to 2018 across 2 courts.

What lawyers frequently appear before Justice Henry Vogelsang?

Top counsel appearing before Justice Henry Vogelsang include Self-represented, Erin L. Reid, David Winninger.

minicounsel

Family and Matrimonial Law

Civil Litigation - Defendant

Civil Litigation - Plaintiff

Corporate/Commercial Law

Real Estate Law

Henry Vogelsang

Since 2012

Background

Justice Henry Vogelsang has presided over a limited number of cases (5 total) at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice between 2016 and 2018. His docket primarily involves Family and Matrimonial Law matters, with a significant overlap in civil litigation where he has adjudicated as a defendant court. His decisions are recent up to August 2018, with no recorded activity since then. The cases before him have mostly been motions (4 out of 5), with one costs decision.

cases · 7 yrs · SCJ, ODC

Trial

Motion

Costs

Appeal

Sentencing

42 total

David Ashford

8 cases1985–2017

Henry Vogelsang

SCJ42 cases2012–2018

SCJSuperior Court of JusticeDec 21, 2012

Court recalculates child support after rejecting allegation of hidden income.

The applicant brought a motion to change the child support terms contained in a separation agreement, asserting that his income had decreased and that the support payable under the agreement no longer reflected his actual earnings.

The respondent alleged that the applicant was concealing income from cash payments, bonuses, and side work and sought imputation of a higher income.

The court accepted the applicant’s evidence that prior cash payments and bonuses had ceased and found no credible basis to impute additional income.

Applying the Ontario Child Support Guidelines, the court determined the applicant’s guideline income based on his actual earnings and recalculated table child support and section 7 childcare contributions accordingly.

The court also modified the payment structure for section 7 expenses to avoid reimbursement disputes between the parties.

Cole v. Cole, 2012 ONSC 7225

Crown wardship ordered for infant with severe medical needs due to parents' inability to provide extraordinary care.

The Children's Aid Society apprehended a newborn child with severe congenital heart defects and other medical issues.

The child required extraordinary care, constant monitoring, and multiple surgeries, which were provided by her foster parents.

The biological parents, who had significant cognitive, psychological, and financial limitations, sought the return of the child.

The court found the child in need of protection and ordered Crown wardship without access, concluding that the parents lacked the capacity to meet the child's exceptional medical and developmental needs, and that removing the child from her bonded foster family would be detrimental to her best interests.