Jennifer Swan

The applicant sought to set aside the spousal support terms of a 2010 Minutes of Settlement and Consent on the grounds of uncertainty, duress, undue influence, and unconscionability, and sought retroactive spousal support.

The court found that the claims to set aside the agreement were not statute-barred.

However, the court dismissed the claims on their merits, finding no evidence of duress, undue influence, or unconscionability.

The court also declined to override the agreement under the Miglin framework, finding that the agreement substantially complied with the objectives of the Divorce Act.

The respondent was ordered to pay the outstanding balance of $8,780.00 owed under the Consent.

The maternal grandparents sought full indemnity costs of $21,008.73 against the mother following a successful motion for make-up access.

The court found that the mother had acted in bad faith by deliberately obstructing the grandparents' court-ordered access and raising unsubstantiated abuse allegations.

The court rejected the mother's request to apportion costs to the father.

After reviewing the bill of costs and making adjustments for excessive claims and unrelated tasks, the court awarded the grandparents full indemnity costs fixed at $13,190.00, payable in two installments due to the mother's limited financial means.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion seeking Crown wardship with no access for a 20-month-old child who had been in care since birth.

The child's parents did not oppose the motion, but the maternal grandmother sought custody or access.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding the grandmother's plan, noting her history of child welfare involvement, substance abuse, and lack of insight.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the child in need of protection and ordering Crown wardship with no access to facilitate adoption.

In a status review proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, the court considered whether five children continued to require protection and what permanent placement would serve their best interests.

The evidence established a lengthy history of child protection involvement involving severe neglect, unsafe and unsanitary home conditions, inadequate supervision, educational neglect, exposure to sexualized behaviour, and parental instability.

Both parents demonstrated significant limitations in parenting capacity, insight, and ability to meet the children’s complex developmental and emotional needs despite extensive services.

The court concluded that the children remained in need of protection and that returning them to either parent would expose them to serious risks of harm.

Crown wardship was ordered with structured supervised access to both parents and supervised sibling access.

Following a second trial in a family law matter, the court determined the costs for both the first and second trials.

The first trial had been overturned on appeal due to inadequate reasons by the trial judge.

The court declined to award costs for the first trial, finding neither party at fault for its failure.

For the second trial, the applicant was substantially more successful and had made a reasonable offer to settle.

However, the court noted that both parties had unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs of $150,000 for the second trial.