James A. Ramsay

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision refusing to certify a proposed class action against a medical clinic for infection control lapses during endoscopies.

The motion judge had denied certification on the basis that the appellant failed to establish an identifiable class of two or more people who suffered harm.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred in law by requiring evidence of actual harm to multiple people at the certification stage, rather than just an objective basis to identify class members.

The matter was remitted to the motion judge to determine the remaining certification criteria.

The appellant appealed an order granting summary judgment and dismissing her claims for equalization of net family properties and spousal support under the Family Law Act.

The motions judge had found she was not a spouse due to a foreign annulment.

The Divisional Court determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as the order dismissed an equalization claim and there was no indication the amount in dispute was $50,000 or less.

The court transferred the appeal to the Court of Appeal pursuant to s. 110(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The responding party brought a motion to change a final order to reduce child support in Welland.

The moving party moved to transfer the proceeding to Toronto, arguing that the children reside there and it would be more convenient.

The court found that under Rule 5(1) of the Family Law Rules, the responding party was permitted to start the case in Welland where she resides, as the motion did not deal with custody or access.

The court dismissed the transfer motion, concluding it was not substantially more convenient to deal with the case in Toronto, especially given the shift to virtual hearings and the fact that evidence regarding the responding party's income is located in Welland.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel answers to questions refused at the defendant's examination for discovery, to compel production of documents, and for leave to amend the statement of claim in a motor vehicle accident action.

The court ordered the defendant to disclose particulars of surveillance evidence before the plaintiff's examination, produce a redacted accident benefits application, and re-attend discovery regarding his opiate use.

The court also granted the plaintiff leave to amend the statement of claim to include allegations of impaired driving, punitive damages, and breaches of statutory settlement duties.

The applicant sought to enforce a notice of garnishment to collect a $21,082 debt owed by the respondent pursuant to a family law settlement order.

The respondent disputed the garnishment, arguing she could not refinance her home to pay the debt because the applicant had not yet released her from liability on their jointly owned home's mortgage, as required by the same order.

The court found the conditions of the settlement order were not severable and the applicant's fulfilment of his obligations was essential to the respondent fulfilling hers.

The notices of garnishment were quashed.

The applicant father brought a motion to find the respondent mother in contempt of a 2018 access order after he was denied access to the children since December 2019.

The court found that while the preponderance of the evidence suggested the mother's recent attempt to facilitate access was a sham, it did not meet the criminal standard of proof required for contempt.

The motion was dismissed, but no costs were awarded due to the mother's unreasonable conduct.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order for extended society care for two children, with access only to each other.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking the return of the children or placement with a friend or relative.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the mother's history of physical abuse, lack of insight, and failure to engage in programming.

The court granted the motion, ordering extended care for adoption and sibling access, finding it was the only prospect for a safe childhood.

The parties were involved in a custody dispute over their five-year-old daughter.

The mother brought a motion for the return of the child after the father overheld her following an access visit, while the father brought a motion for temporary custody within his underlying motion to change.

The father alleged that the mother's new partner excessively disciplined the child and treated her poorly.

The court found that the child was treated like a stepchild in her own home and that the new partner's discipline was excessive.

The court granted temporary joint custody, with the child's principal residence to be with the father.

The Children's Aid Society of Niagara Region moved for summary judgment to place a child in extended care without access under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The respondent mother had a history of inadequate care for older children, drug use during pregnancy, avoidance of prenatal care, and unsuitable living conditions.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding that the mother could not provide adequate care and that extended care without access was in the child's best interests, given the child's need for a permanent home and good adoption prospects.

The Children's Aid Society of the Niagara Region brought a motion to place a First Nations child in foster care, while the mother brought a cross-motion to have the child returned to her under supervision.

The court considered the child's history, recent concerns including unexplained bruises, alcohol/cannabis use, and unauthorized caregivers, alongside the principles of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 and An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Metis Children.

Giving serious weight to the First Nation's judgment, the court found the child could be adequately protected under the mother's supervision with new conditions, dismissing the Society's motion and granting the mother's.

The applicant children's aid society brought a motion to vary a temporary order that had placed two young children in its care, seeking to place them with the father of the younger child under supervision.

The mother opposed the placement.

The court dismissed the motion to change the primary placement, finding insufficient evidence of the proposed father's suitability and concluding that the least intrusive order consistent with the children's best interests was to maintain the current society care order.

The court did vary the order to restrict the older child's father's access to only his biological child.

The parties, separated parents of three children, brought cross-motions concerning the temporary residence of their children and the partition and sale of their matrimonial home.

The court upheld the existing temporary residence arrangement, emphasizing the children's views and the ongoing work of the Children's Lawyer.

The court also ordered the immediate partition and sale of the matrimonial home, dismissing the respondent's concerns about market timing during COVID-19 and unresolved financial issues, finding no prejudice to property rights under the Family Law Act.

The Respondent sought costs for his successful motion for partition and sale and the Applicant's unsuccessful motions for exclusive possession and disclosure.

The Respondent requested $9,427.85, representing 83% of actual costs.

The Applicant argued for no costs or $1,500.

The court found the Respondent completely successful, applying the presumption of costs under Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules.

The Applicant's disclosure request was deemed a last-minute attempt to stall.

The court fixed costs at $7,500, ordering the Applicant to pay this amount to the Respondent.

In an application for a status review under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, the respondent father moved for a temporary order for supervised access with specific terms, including an alternative supervision agency.

The Children's Aid Society (applicant) and the respondent mother agreed to supervised access but opposed the father's proposed terms, particularly the agency.

The court reviewed the father's history of domestic violence, substance abuse, and instability, finding his proposed alternative agency unsuitable.

The court ordered supervised access at Pathstone when available, with virtual or telephone access in the interim, and stipulated that repeated missed visits would terminate access.

The father's specific requests for an alternative agency were denied.

The Applicant sought $4,200 in costs for a temporary custody motion.

The Respondent argued against any costs.

The court considered the Applicant's settlement offer, his non-compliance with a prior order, and the Respondent's ability to pay.

While the Applicant's offer was deemed unreasonable and his non-compliance noted, the Respondent's position on child support was found unreasonable.

Costs were fixed at $1,500 in favour of the Applicant.

The Respondent moved for partition and sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home, while the Applicant sought exclusive possession of the home and production of documentary evidence.

The court granted the partition and sale, finding no oppressive conduct by the Respondent and that the sale would not prejudice the Applicant's property rights under the Family Law Act, provided her share of proceeds was not frozen.

The Applicant's request for exclusive possession was denied, as there were no dependent children and the parties' financial positions were comparable.

The Applicant's disclosure request was deemed premature, while the Respondent's was satisfied.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion to vary a final order, seeking temporary custody of the parties' nearly 13-year-old daughter and termination of his child support obligations.

The child had, eight months prior, decided to reside with the father in Niagara Falls due to anxiety and dissatisfaction with the previous arrangement of shuttling between parents in Kitchener and Niagara Falls.

The court found the child's decision to be in her best interests, emphasizing the need for stability and criticizing the respondent mother's resistance to cooperation.

The motion was granted, awarding temporary custody to the applicant father and terminating his child support.

The respondent sought to restore parenting time after the applicant unilaterally suspended access due to pandemic concerns.

The applicant filed a cross-motion for a new access schedule, pandemic-related terms, and a restraining order.

The court adjourned the primary access motions but granted a one-year restraining order against the respondent based on corroborated allegations of abuse.

The court also issued temporary parenting time orders, vacating a prior consent order and establishing a new schedule and exchange protocol, while largely rejecting the applicant's detailed pandemic-specific requests.

The applicant father brought a motion for restoration of access to his two children and an assessment under s. 30 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The respondent mother had withheld access since January 2020 and failed to file responding materials.

The court granted the applicant interim access to the children and ordered the respondent to pay $500 in costs, emphasizing that it is not in the children's best interests to be without their father.

The Applicant sought a temporary order for the return of children and re-establishment of their primary residence.

The Respondent opposed, seeking custody with supervised access for the Applicant, citing concerns about the Applicant's alcohol use, mental health, and a domestic violence incident involving her partner.

The court found the facts contested but ordered the children to reside with the parties more or less equally, with the Respondent returning the children to the Applicant forthwith.

A condition was imposed that the Applicant not permit contact between the children and her partner, Mark Korolenchuk.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer was invited to participate, and costs were reserved.