James B. Pietrangelo

The Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion in a child protection proceeding.

The Society filed voluminous materials, including 16 affidavits and a 35-page single-spaced factum, without seeking leave to exceed practice direction limits.

The self-represented respondent grandmother had not received the updated materials until the morning of the hearing.

The court adjourned the motion, emphasizing that procedural fairness requires the Society to file focused, relevant evidence so that a self-represented litigant has a meaningful opportunity to respond.

The Society was ordered to file amended, page-limited materials.

The applicant, a psychiatrist, sought an order to commit a 17-year-old youth, J.P., to a secure treatment program for 180 days under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The application was opposed by the Family & Children’s Services and the Office of the Children’s Lawyer representing J.P. The court dismissed the application, finding that while J.P. had a mental disorder and a history of substantial threats, the strict statutory criterion requiring evidence of serious bodily harm caused or attempted within 45 days immediately preceding the application was not met.

The court emphasized that secure treatment is an extraordinary measure with significant liberty interests at stake, and the "best interests" of the child, while paramount in general child protection proceedings, is not the test for committal to secure treatment.

The appellants, former tenants, appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent landlord rental arrears, repair costs, and costs.

The appellants argued the Landlord and Tenant Board had exclusive jurisdiction because the landlord had served a Form N4 Notice to End a Tenancy.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that under section 87 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, the Board loses jurisdiction to hear an application for rental arrears once the tenants vacate the premises, thereby giving the Small Claims Court jurisdiction.

The court also upheld the trial judge's costs award.

Costs decision following motions in two related civil actions seeking orders that the actions be tried together or sequentially, extensions of time to set the matters down for trial, and leave to amend a statement of claim.

Some relief sought by the plaintiffs was unopposed and granted, while other relief was modified by the court, which ordered the matters placed on the trial list together with the trial judge retaining discretion to try them together or separately.

The court found that neither side achieved complete success, as the plaintiffs did not obtain the precise relief requested and the opposing parties shifted their position during the hearing.

Given the divided success and the circumstances of the motions, the court concluded that no costs order was appropriate.

The plaintiffs brought motions seeking an order that two civil actions arising from alleged sexual assaults by a school guidance counsellor be tried together or consecutively.

The plaintiffs also sought an extension of time to set the actions down for trial and leave to amend one statement of claim.

The court applied Rule 6.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and found that the actions shared common questions of fact, overlapping witnesses, and a risk of inconsistent findings.

The court concluded that judicial economy and the interests of justice supported coordinating the proceedings.

Leave to amend was granted, timelines for trial were extended, and the actions were ordered to be placed on the trial list to be tried together or consecutively as directed by the trial judge.

The appellant mother appealed a trial judgment awarding sole custody of the parties' two-year-old son to the respondent father, as well as the access provisions and equalization payment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding custody and equalization, finding no error in the trial judge's application of the maximum contact principle under the Divorce Act.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding access, finding the trial judge erred by refusing to hear the self-represented appellant's submissions that the ordered access schedule was unworkable due to her employment and traffic constraints.

A trial of an issue was ordered for the question of access.