Jean Hyndman

The appellant, Hang Chen, brought two appeals before the Court of Appeal for Ontario: one from an order dismissing his motion to change child support and another from an order imposing penalties for contempt.

The appellant failed to appear for the appeal hearing and did not comply with a court order to provide evidence for his absence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding no errors in the lower court's decisions, which were warranted due to the appellant's consistent failure to provide financial disclosure, pay outstanding support and costs obligations, and attend court proceedings.

The Respondent mother and the Children's Lawyer brought a summary judgment motion against the Applicant father seeking sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of the children, child support, contribution towards s.7 expenses, no equalization payment, and dismissal of the father's spousal support claim.

The father, who is self-represented and suffers from significant disabilities, opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding that a fair and just determination could not be made due to insufficient evidence, particularly regarding the father's medical condition and financial disclosure, and the rushed scheduling of the motion.

However, the court issued interim parenting orders granting the mother sole decision-making and primary residence, with the father's parenting time to be in accordance with the children's wishes, including supervised contact for the younger child.

The court also ordered further disclosure and a settlement conference, declining to award costs to any party due to mixed conduct.

The applicant father sought temporary custody of a 13-month-old child and an order requiring vaccination according to Ontario's standard immunization schedule.

The respondent mother opposed custody and sought to implement a delayed vaccination schedule using only aluminum-free vaccines.

The court dismissed competing custody claims but granted the father's motion regarding vaccination.

The court ordered that the child be vaccinated according to the standard Ontario schedule as recommended by the child's physician and supported by expert evidence from a pediatric infectious disease specialist.

The court also established a process for disclosure of health and counselling records between the parties, balancing privacy interests with the need for relevant information in custody proceedings.

The respondent father brought a motion to change child support orders and sought a paternity test, alleging he was not the biological parent of the child.

The mother consented to the paternity test, which confirmed the father's biological parentage.

The father sought to reduce child support and arrears based on claims of changed circumstances, including lower income, loss of driver's license, job loss, and medical issues.

The court found the father's evidence not credible, noting his financial disclosure was unreliable and his circumstances were substantially similar to those presented in a previous motion to change dismissed in 2010.

The court dismissed the motion to change and found the father had not met his onus to prove a material change in circumstances.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion to vary the mother's access to her seven-year-old daughter, seeking an order that access be at the Society's discretion.

The child had begun refusing to visit her mother in November 2017 after previously having regular, successful access.

The Society argued that forcing access would cause emotional and physical harm to the child.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while there was a sufficient change in circumstances, it was not in the child's best interests to suspend access.

The court emphasized the maximum contact principle, the lack of evidence-based reasons for the suspension, and the need for immediate counselling to address the underlying causes of the child's refusal.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion under section 74 of the Child and Family Services Act seeking production of a psychiatric report and records prepared by Dr. Mary Lilley regarding the young person X. The respondent parents supported the motion, but X. opposed the release of their private psychiatric records.

The court considered competing interests between the society's need for relevant information to inform its service plan and X.'s privacy interests and therapeutic relationship with the psychiatrist.

The court determined that before ruling on the motion, it would conduct a judicial review of the report in a sealed envelope to determine whether the society had met its onus of establishing relevance and whether the report should be released.

The respondent brought a motion for custody of the parties' child, and the applicant opposed and brought a cross-motion for custody.

The court awarded temporary custody to the respondent mother, finding her to be the primary caregiver with superior parenting capacity.

The applicant's attempts to limit the respondent's access, unilateral decision-making regarding the child's care, and credibility concerns regarding his truthfulness and respect for the respondent as a co-parent were determinative factors.

The court granted the applicant alternate weekend access and mid-week overnight access, but rejected a 50-50 arrangement due to the parties' inability to communicate effectively and lack of clarity regarding the applicant's caregiving routine.

This is a child protection trial under the Child and Family Services Act involving two children, K.A.J. (born 1998) and I.C. (born 2006), who were found to be in need of protection on July 7, 2011.

The Society sought Crown wardship for both children.

The respondent mother sought return of the children under Society supervision, citing her completion of an alcohol treatment program.

The respondent father sought custody of I.C. with a plan to take the child to Angola upon his deportation.

The court found that both children should be made Crown wards, with the Society's plan for long-term care and independent living for K.A.J., and adoption for I.C. The court granted limited access orders to both parents and between the siblings.

In a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, the court considered a motion by the child's lawyer seeking judicial notice of documents regarding conditions in Angola, including UN Human Development Index data, UNICEF reports, and documents from the Immigration and Refugee Board's national documentation package.

The father, subject to a deportation order to Angola, sought to have the children placed in his care with a plan to relocate them to Angola.

The court rejected the motion for judicial notice, finding that the proposed facts were adjudicative in nature and closely approached the central dispositive issue in the case, requiring strict application of the Morgan standard for judicial notice.