James A. Ramsay

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 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.

The complainant, A., sought certiorari to quash a trial judge's decision regarding the admissibility of her sexual history evidence under s.276 of the Criminal Code in a sexual assault trial.

The trial judge had admitted certain prior sexual activity as relevant to the accused's belief in communicated consent, while prohibiting its use for propensity reasoning.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, finding no error of law going to jurisdiction and exercising its discretion to refuse interlocutory review, emphasizing the need to minimize delay in criminal trials and the non-final nature of the ruling at that stage.

The accused, Derek Horth, sought a review of a detention order issued by a Justice of the Peace.

Horth argued for release based on alleged material changes in circumstances, including an improved surety plan with increased financial commitment and electronic monitoring, and the public health risks posed by the COVID-19 pandemic in custodial facilities.

He also claimed the Justice of the Peace made four errors of law during the initial bail hearing.

The Superior Court found no material changes in circumstances, noting the continued unsuitability of the proposed sureties due to their lack of oversight and understanding of the accused's criminal history.

The court also dismissed the alleged errors of law, affirming the Justice of the Peace's assessment of the Crown's strong case and the necessity of detention on tertiary grounds to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The application for review was dismissed, and the detention order was upheld.

This is an application by the accused, Jermaine Chapman, under s.520 of the Criminal Code to review a detention order.

The accused sought release based on a new bail plan with strong sureties and electronic monitoring, public interest concerns due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and potential trial delays.

The court found no error in the original justice's decision to detain and determined that the health emergency did not outweigh other considerations for detention.

The court also noted that while trial delays might occur, detention remained necessary and could be reviewed in the future.

The application for review was dismissed.

The Respondent brought a motion to cite the Applicant for contempt of prior access orders concerning their 8-year-old daughter, and subsequently moved for directions to set a trial date for the contempt motion and enforce interim orders.

The court noted significant issues with the child's relationship with the Respondent, stemming from the Respondent's comportment, and the child's forceful refusal of contact.

The judge found the Respondent's tone imperious and his credibility reduced, concluding that the child's problems were complex and unlikely to be resolved by a contempt trial, with negligible chances of proving deliberate breach by the Applicant.

The motion for directions was dismissed without costs, and the contempt motion was adjourned for trial, with a recommendation for reconciliation counselling or a motion to change.

The accused sought a detention review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code.

The accused, 48 years old with 84 prior convictions including breaches of recognizance and escapes, was found in possession of significant quantities of crystal methamphetamine, crack cocaine, powder cocaine, and fentanyl, along with drug paraphernalia.

The court considered the strong Crown case, the accused's extensive criminal record, and the unsuitability of the proposed surety.

Despite potential trial delays due to the pandemic and the prospect of COVID-19 in detention, the court found continued detention necessary on the secondary ground due to the high risk of reoffending and lack of respect for court orders.

The bail review was dismissed.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a prior motion where the applicants sought further relief, which was largely denied, and the executors (respondents) were ordered to pass accounts and restrict insurance disbursements.

Both parties sought costs.

The court found the respondents were successful on the costs issue, noting the motion's necessity stemmed from the applicants' unsupported claims.

The respondents, as trustees, were entitled to actual costs from the estate, and the applicants were ordered to partially indemnify the estate by paying $5,000 in costs to the estate.

The applicant father sought a temporary order for alternate weekend access, Wednesday evening access, special Christmas access, and an order for the respondent mother to enroll their 12-year-old daughter in reconciliation counselling.

The child, whose views were confirmed by a Voice of the Child report, did not wish to see her father due to his past infidelity and involving her in a secret.

The mother was not opposed to access but advocated for a gradual re-introduction.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding it not in the child's best interest to force access against her wishes, especially on an interim basis, and awarded costs to the respondent.

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.

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.