James A. Ramsay

The Children's Aid Society moved for summary judgment to grant custody of a 13-year-old child to his maternal aunt.

The mother, who was self-represented, failed to file responding materials or attend the hearing.

The court noted the mother's outstanding criminal charges, mental health issues, and inability to fulfill her proposed plans of care.

Finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, the court granted the motion and ordered custody to the maternal aunt under section 102 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, with access to the mother at the aunt's discretion.

The Crown appealed a conditional sentence of six months' imprisonment and three years' probation imposed on the respondent for the sexual assault of a nine-year-old child.

The trial judge had prioritized the respondent's health issues, specifically his reliance on a prosthetic leg, over principles of deterrence and denunciation.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge overemphasized the health issues without evidence that incarceration would cause undue hardship.

The sentence was varied to six months of actual imprisonment followed by 18 months of probation.

The accused brought pre-trial motions to exclude evidence in a drug trafficking prosecution involving heroin, fentanyl, cocaine, and psilocybin.

The accused challenged the sufficiency of the search warrants for two motel rooms, sought leave to cross-examine the affiant, and alleged Charter breaches regarding unlawful detention, strip searches, and delayed implementation of the right to counsel.

The court dismissed all motions, finding the warrants sufficient, the detention and strip searches justified, and that while the right to counsel was breached by delay, no evidence was obtained as a result of that breach.

This endorsement addresses cross-motions for temporary orders in a family law dispute following a marriage of 11 years and separation.

The Applicant sought orders regarding child support, telephone access, passport renewal, and appraisal of the matrimonial home.

The Respondent sought extended summer access, daily telephone access, an order for the child to remain in her current school, production of documents, and spousal support.

The court made strong credibility findings against the self-represented Respondent, noting his unfounded allegations and uncooperative conduct.

The Applicant was granted temporary sole custody, decision-making power for the child's school, and the ability to renew the child's passport.

The Respondent's telephone access was terminated due to abuse.

Child support was varied based on updated income.

The Respondent's motions were largely dismissed, and he was ordered to have the matrimonial home appraised and to pay costs to the Applicant due to his unreasonable positions.

The respondent brought a motion to change a 2012 child support order.

Following a period of reconciliation and subsequent re-separation, and changes in the children's living arrangements and the parties' incomes, the court recalculated child support obligations.

The respondent's income had decreased due to health issues and vocational training, while the applicant's income remained relatively stable.

The court imputed incomes for both parties and adjusted child support payments retroactively and prospectively, resulting in the applicant paying support to the respondent for certain periods, and ultimately terminating all child support payments from January 1, 2020.

Section 7 expenses were declined due to the family's financial circumstances.

The Children's Aid Society of Niagara brought a motion under s. 121(4) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act for a temporary order for care and custody of a child and a stay of a previous order by Bale J. The previous order had returned the child to the mother with conditions.

Justice Ramsay clarified the Divisional Court's jurisdiction for appeals under the CYFS Act, noting an appeal as of right.

The court found a palpable and overriding error in Bale J.'s decision to return the child to the mother given serious concerns about the mother's mental health and anger management, as reported by the maternal grandmother.

The motion was granted, varying Bale J.'s order to place the child in the care and custody of the maternal grandmother, subject to the Society's supervision and specific conditions.

The motion for a stay was dismissed as unnecessary.

TSN brought a motion to set aside an ex parte sealing order that restricted public access to a court file involving the Niagara Ice Dogs and the Ontario Hockey League.

The underlying dispute concerned an OHL investigation into an alleged unwritten contract between the team and a player.

The court applied the Sierra Club test and found that while protecting the identity of minor players was an important public interest, there was no real and substantial risk to that interest on the evidence, especially since the complainant's identity was already public.

The sealing order was set aside, and costs were awarded to TSN and the OHL against the team.

The Applicant sought costs of approximately $56,000, while the Respondent proposed costs based on her actual expenses of about $44,000.

The Applicant was successful in the underlying case, which concerned the relocation of children, an issue the Respondent had conceded two years prior.

The court awarded the Applicant $40,000 in costs, representing almost full indemnity, to be paid by the Respondent.

The respondent moved to set aside an order made after an uncontested trial where he had been noted in default.

The court found two reasons to set aside the order: the respondent likely did not receive a letter about the uncontested hearing due to an incorrect address, and the applicant's affidavit for the uncontested trial contained inaccurate information about the respondent's address.

Additionally, the court emphasized the undesirability of making child custody decisions without both parents' participation.

The court set aside the previous order and restraining order, and issued temporary orders regarding child residence, communication, and travel restrictions, inviting the Office of the Children’s Lawyer to participate.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking an order to unseal a search warrant and to compel the defendants to provide answers to questions refused during examination for discovery.

The court denied leave for further discovery due to a five-year delay in seeking answers and the nature of the questions, which would contravene a sealing order and potentially identify a confidential informant.

The application to unseal the search warrant was quashed because it was not brought before the proper court as stipulated by s. 487.3(4) of the Criminal Code, as the civil action for damages was not considered a proceeding "arising out of the investigation."

The appellant, E.B., appealed convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference.

The appeal focused on the trial judge's assessment of the appellant's credibility, specifically regarding her reaction to the allegations during a police interview and the interpretation of her testimony.

The Superior Court found that the trial judge erred in concluding that the appellant failed to provide an unequivocal denial and misapprehended her testimony.

These errors were crucial to the verdict, leading to the convictions being set aside and a new trial ordered.

The applicant brought an urgent motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home following separation due to the respondent's psychological abuse.

The court granted the applicant exclusive possession, ordering the respondent to vacate, primarily considering the best interests of the children involved.

The decision highlighted the unsuitability of the status quo for the children and the applicant's ability to maintain the home.

Costs were fixed at $750 and reserved to the trial judge.

The applicant executor sought court direction regarding a charitable gift to a respondent organization whose charitable status had been revoked.

Concurrently, the respondent organization moved for leave to be represented by a non-lawyer.

The court denied leave for non-lawyer representation, citing the proposed representative's past conduct and inability to advocate effectively, and ordered the organization to appoint a solicitor.

The court also allowed the executor to pay the disputed funds into court and added the Public Guardian and Trustee as a party with carriage of the application, recognizing its parens patriae role in charitable matters.

The applicant hockey team sought an interim injunction to adjourn an internal league appeal of a discipline ruling, arguing that an arbitration clause in a player's contract should govern the underlying dispute.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the commissioner's discipline decision concerned a breach of league rules, not the player's contract, and that the Arbitration Act did not apply to the league's disciplinary process.

The court also noted that the applicant should exhaust internal league remedies before seeking court intervention.

The defendant brought a motion under s.105 of the Courts of Justice Act for an order requiring the plaintiff to submit to a medical examination.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, citing significant delay by the defendant in seeking the examination, which would prejudice the plaintiff and delay the trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendant's delay was inexcusable and that the prejudice to the plaintiff, who was 77 years old, and to the orderly administration of justice outweighed the defendant's right to a medical examination, especially given the availability of other medical evidence and the potential inadmissibility of a late expert report under Rule 53.03.

The respondent brought a motion to change a 2015 order that granted sole custody of the parties' child to the applicant with no access to the respondent.

The respondent sought supervised access, proposing supervision by Pathstone for three months, followed by Gordon Mooney.

The court found that it was not in the child's best interest to be exposed to the respondent at this time due to his ongoing and intractable heroin addiction, repeated relapses, and mental health issues.

The respondent's plan for supervised access was also deemed impractical and would cause significant hardship to the applicant.

The motion to change was dismissed, and no order as to costs was made.

The plaintiff sought costs following a successful motion to determine priority between creditors after a judicial sale.

The plaintiff had made an offer to settle for $25,000, which was beaten at the hearing.

The court found the responding party's conduct to be particularly egregious, noting a combination of deceit, frivolous arguments, and repetitive proceedings designed to make collecting a simple debt as expensive as possible.

Consequently, the court awarded the plaintiff full indemnity costs fixed at $150,000.

The applicant moved for costs following a successful motion for directions regarding her late husband's estate.

She sought full indemnity costs of $47,000 or substantial indemnity costs of $42,000, while the respondents argued for partial indemnity.

The court noted the respondents irresponsibly pursued an unmeritorious claim, wasting estate assets.

The court awarded the applicant generous partial indemnity costs fixed at $35,000, payable jointly and severally by the respondents.

The parties separated after a 30-year relationship and both sought custody of their 15-year-old son.

The applicant father also sought to deny spousal support to the respondent mother.

The court found it was in the child's best interests to reside with the applicant, noting the respondent's lack of insight, failure to ensure school attendance, and ongoing substance abuse issues.

The applicant was granted sole custody with access to the respondent.

Given the length of the relationship and the respondent's role as primary caretaker, the court ordered the applicant to pay $1,500 per month in spousal support.

The applicant moved in writing to correct a previous endorsement regarding temporary child and spousal support.

The court acknowledged a miscalculation in the respondent's imputed income and increased child support to $10,500 per month, while amending temporary spousal support to $7,500 per month.

The respondent also moved to set a date to continue a settlement conference, which the court granted, directing the parties to assignment court to schedule the conference.