Joanna Harris

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging bias, discrimination, and failure to provide services by the respondent children's aid society.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were already before the court in an ongoing child protection proceeding.

The Board agreed, finding that the allegations of bias, health and safety concerns, and communication issues were intertwined with the court proceedings and best decided there.

The application was dismissed in its entirety for lack of jurisdiction.

This decision addresses the costs of a motion for a publication ban and sealing order in an appeal concerning child vaccination.

The mother, who brought the original motion, sought costs, arguing the father's publicizing of the case necessitated the motion and increased her expenses.

The father argued for no costs or costs payable to him, asserting he protected the children's identity and consented to much of the relief.

The court found that while the mother achieved some confidentiality protections, she did not obtain all the relief sought (e.g., sealing the file).

The court concluded that the motion would have been necessary regardless of the father's actions due to the open court principle and the need to notify media.

Therefore, the father's behaviour did not cause or increase the mother's costs, and no costs were ordered for the motion.

The children's mother (L.K.) brought a motion for a publication ban, file initialization, and sealing of the court file in an appeal concerning the vaccination status of the parties' children.

The court applied the Dagenais/Mentuck test, finding a serious risk of harm and stigmatization to the children if their identities were revealed.

A tailored publication ban was ordered, prohibiting the publication of identifying information for the children (names, dates of birth, addresses, schools, genders, images, voices, and most health information, except their unvaccinated status) and the parties (names, voices, images).

The court also ordered that the title of proceedings and public documents use initials only, and that future publications not link to non-compliant prior reports.

The request to seal the court file and retroactively amend existing publications was dismissed due to lack of evidentiary basis and practical unenforceability, respectively.

The respondent mother brought a motion for a publication ban in a family law appeal concerning the vaccination of the parties' children.

The mother sought an interim publication ban and sealing order pending the hearing of the motion.

The court found that the mother had not provided proper notice to the media under the Practice Direction because she used initials instead of the parties' names.

The court granted an interim publication ban to preserve the mother's ability to argue for the children's privacy interests at the full hearing, and directed her to provide proper notice to the media using the parties' names.

The appellant father appealed a trial decision dismissing his application under the Hague Convention for the return of his six-year-old daughter to Peru.

The mother had wrongfully retained the child in Ontario but invoked the Article 13(b) 'grave risk' exception, citing a history of domestic violence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that returning the child to Peru would expose her to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm or place her in an intolerable situation.

The appeal was dismissed, allowing the mother's custody claim to proceed in Ontario.

The moving party father brought a motion at the Court of Appeal for unsupervised access to his child pending his appeal of a Superior Court decision dismissing his Hague Convention application.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act, which restricts such motions to the Superior Court or Family Court.

In the alternative, the court held that even if it had jurisdiction, it would dismiss the motion on the merits due to a real risk that the father would remove the child to Peru.

The parties separated after 23 years of marriage.

The husband, a tenured professor, had custody of their three children.

The wife, a contract teacher, made direct financial contributions to the children's expenses but did not pay periodic child support.

The husband appealed the trial judge's dismissal of his claim for retrospective child support and the award of prospective spousal support to the wife for a limited term of five years.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding child support, finding the trial judge did not err in considering the wife's direct contributions.

The Court allowed the cross-appeal in part, varying the spousal support award to $950 per month payable indefinitely, recognizing the economic merger of the parties' interests over the long marriage.

The appellant husband appealed a finding of bad faith made by the motion judge in a family law disclosure motion, but did not appeal the underlying costs order itself.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under section 19(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act, an appeal lies only from an order, not from a finding alone.