Jean-Claude Dubuisson

Décision sur dépens à la suite d'une motion portant sur la compétence des tribunaux ontariens ou québécois concernant des questions parentales.

Le tribunal ordonne à l’intimée de payer 800 $ au requérant, en raison de la conduite déraisonnable de l’intimée et du succès du requérant, qui était autoreprésenté.

The court considered a summary judgment motion by the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa regarding the child, AM.

The Society sought a final custody order for TR, the father’s partner, but the court found there were significant triable issues, including the child’s Indigenous status, the adequacy of kinship assessments, and the best interests of the child regarding care and access.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and the matter was sent to trial.

Following a prior judgment, the applicants sought an order requiring the respondent to pay costs incurred for a motion heard on June 17, 2014.

The court found the applicants had largely succeeded and were therefore entitled to costs.

Because the applicants represented themselves at the hearing, full solicitor’s fees were not awarded.

However, the court accepted that legal consultation occurred and fixed legal fees and disbursements in modest amounts.

The respondent was ordered to pay the assessed costs.

Members of a community association brought an application alleging mismanagement and lack of financial transparency by the association’s president and executive leadership.

The applicants relied on an audit report identifying deficiencies in financial controls, missing documentation for expenditures, and risks of fraud.

The respondent denied the allegations but provided limited evidentiary support and attempted to rely on materials filed late.

The court found the applicants’ concerns credible and concluded that significant governance and transparency issues existed.

The court ordered the association to convene a general meeting, present financial accounts with supporting documentation, appoint independent auditors, and establish a new statute‑review commission, but declined to dissolve the electoral commission.

In a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, all parties agreed the children remained in need of protection due to parental incapacity and sought a permanent care plan under s. 57.1.

Competing plans proposed placement with maternal grandparents, with the paternal grandmother, or maintenance of split placements.

After reviewing extensive evidence on caregiving capacity, family conflict, cultural and religious issues, and the children’s best interests, the court ordered shared legal custody between the maternal grandparents and the paternal grandmother on an alternating weekly schedule.

The court also set terms for religious holidays, birthday exchanges, and transition arrangements.