Bonnie C. Oldham

The accused was charged with assault and breach of probation following an alleged domestic incident at a hotel.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the evidence of the complainant, who alleged the accused punched her in the face and head.

The court found significant inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, including her denial of interactions with the accused's mother shortly after the incident, her fabricated claim that the accused barricaded himself in the room, and her denial of telling a witness she fell on the stairs.

Due to these inconsistencies and concerns about her level of intoxication, the court found her evidence unreliable.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.

The respondent mother sought permission to relocate the child, Mason, from Ontario to New Brunswick.

The applicant father opposed the relocation.

The court considered the child's best interests under the Children's Law Reform Act, including the child's strong wishes and preferences to remain in Ontario, the quality of the father's relationship with the child, the lack of compelling reasons for relocation, and the mother's concerning pattern of non-compliance with court orders.

The court denied the temporary relocation order, finding that relocation was not in the child's best interests at this time.

The Children's Aid Society initiated child protection proceedings concerning S.D. The paternal great-grandmother, A.D., moved to be added as a party to the proceedings.

The maternal grandmother, L.P., opposed the motion, arguing it would cause delay and that A.D. was not a primary caregiver.

The Society did not oppose A.D.'s motion.

The court found it was in the child's best interests to add A.D. as a party, noting her significant and consistent caregiving role, and that the existing order for L.P. to make "reasonable access arrangements with A.D." constituted a right of access, making A.D. a "parent" under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

Even if not a statutory parent, the court would exercise its discretion to add A.D. as a party.

The motion was granted.

The parties, unmarried parents of a three-year-old child, separated after a brief relationship marked by high conflict and incidents of domestic violence.

The mother sought sole decision-making responsibility and permission to relocate with the child from North Bay to Sudbury, while the father sought joint decision-making and equal parenting time in North Bay.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility, finding that the parties' inability to communicate and the father's lack of trust made joint decision-making unworkable.

The court also authorized the relocation to Sudbury, concluding it was in the child's best interests given the mother's role as primary caregiver, her need for family support, and the father's failure to foster a cooperative relationship.

The father was granted generous parenting time and ordered to pay child support.

The applicant mother brought a motion to strike the respondent father's pleadings in a Motion to Change proceeding.

The father had failed to comply with multiple court orders, including: cessation of child support payments (arrears of $11,900), failure to provide financial disclosure despite court orders and multiple adjournments, failure to pay a costs order, and refusal to engage in court-ordered reunification counselling.

The court found egregious and exceptional circumstances warranting the striking of the father's Response to Motion to Change, Affidavit in Support of Custody and Access, and Financial Statement.

However, recognizing the involvement of children and the potential merit of the father's claim regarding changed circumstances due to retirement, the court provided a pathway for re-engagement with specific compliance conditions to be met by December 31, 2020.

The accused was charged with two counts of breach of undertaking arising from incidents on July 4, 2019.

The Crown alleged that the accused attended at a residence in breach of a condition prohibiting him from attending at that location, and that he communicated with a named individual in breach of a non-communication condition.

The trial proceeded over two days.

The court found the undertaking valid and in force at the time of the alleged breaches.

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused attended at the prohibited location and that he communicated with the named individual, both in breach of the undertaking conditions.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts, though subsequently a stay was entered on one count pursuant to the Kienapple principle.

The accused was charged with one count of assault and two counts of breach of recognizance.

The Crown alleged the accused slapped the complainant during a domestic dispute.

The accused denied the assault occurred and alternatively argued consent.

The court admitted similar fact evidence of prior domestic violence but found it had minimal probative value.

The court accepted the complainant's evidence and found the accused guilty of assault, rejecting the consent defence.

The accused was also found guilty of the two breach charges after conceding the Crown's case.

This is a costs decision following a temporary order on a motion for the return of a child to the applicant's home.

The motion also sought orders for temporary custody, child support, alternate weekend access, and school enrollment.

The respondent father was the successful party on the central issues of the child's primary residence and school enrollment.

The applicant mother argued there was divided success and that the respondent's conduct in involving police and Children's Aid Society before communicating with her was unreasonable.

The court found the respondent's conduct was not unreasonable and awarded costs at 60% of the respondent's bill rather than full recovery, considering the nature of the issues and the need for the motion.

The Crown brought an application under section 672.11(b) of the Criminal Code seeking an order for a mental assessment to determine whether the accused was suffering from a mental disorder at the time of the alleged offences that would render him exempt from criminal responsibility under section 16(1).

The accused faced charges including break and enter, fail to comply with probation orders, resist peace officer, theft, and mischief.

The defence opposed the application.

The court dismissed the Crown's application, finding insufficient reasonable grounds to believe the accused suffered from a mental disorder or that he did not know his actions were wrong at the time of the offences.

This is a summary judgment motion in a child protection case under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Children's Aid Society sought a custody order granting sole custody of two children to their paternal grandparents, with whom they had been placed following the death of their father.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing that the matter required a trial.

The court found that the children were in need of protection due to risk of physical and emotional harm, that ongoing court intervention was necessary, and that it was in the children's best interests to remain in the custody of the paternal grandparents.

The court granted the custody order and established a specific access schedule for the mother.

This is a costs decision following three separate motions heard on January 25, 2018, in a family law matter involving custody, access, and child support.

The applicant (father) was substantially successful on the issues of access, appointment of an Office of the Children's Lawyer, leave to amend, production of documents, removal of the child from Canada, and unsupervised access in Germany.

The respondent (mother) was unsuccessful on most contested issues, though the parties reached consent resolutions on access and child support.

The court awarded costs to the successful party on a partial indemnity basis, considering divided success, the parties' conduct, offers to settle, and proportionality.

In a child protection status review application, the Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking custody of a child who had suffered serious unexplained injuries at two months of age.

The child had been in foster care and subsequently in the care of paternal grandparents under a supervision order.

The biological mother opposed the motion, arguing that counselling she had undertaken created a genuine issue for trial regarding her ability to care for the child.

The court found that the unexplained injuries, combined with the mother's lack of insight, ongoing lack of cooperation with the Society, and the conclusions of a parenting capacity assessment, established an ongoing need for protection.

The court granted summary judgment, placing the child in the custody of the paternal grandparents with supervised access for the mother.

This is a Status Review Application under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 concerning two children who were apprehended in November 2015 following serious injuries inflicted by the mother's partner.

The mother sought return of the children to her care or placement with her mother.

The Society sought an order for extended care to facilitate adoption by the current kinship placement.

The court found that the mother had not adequately addressed the protection concerns despite significant support and services over 26 months.

The court ordered extended care of both children with the Society, with the children holding access rights to the mother at the Society's discretion.

Motion for interim temporary access to a child following an emergency motion.

The applicant mother sought to maintain primary residence and modify the respondent father's access schedule from two overnight midweek visits to evening visits only.

The respondent father sought to set aside the interim order and establish a shared parenting arrangement with significantly expanded access.

The court confirmed the established status quo of the mother as primary caregiver with the father having alternate weekend access and one midweek overnight visit, finding no compelling reasons to change the arrangement and noting the father's conduct in withholding the child created concerns about his willingness to respect the mother's relationship with the child.

The maternal grandmother (M.T.) brought a motion seeking to maintain access to the child (L.T.) at two hours per week, or alternatively at least eight hours per month, following reductions in access ordered by the Children's Aid Society.

The child had been placed in extended society care following a summary judgment motion.

M.T. argued the Society had not demonstrated a material change in circumstances justifying the access reduction.

The Society maintained it had discretion to reduce access based on behavioural issues observed in the child and the need to normalize the child's life.

The court granted the motion in part, finding that while the Society had not acted contrary to the child's best interests in reducing access frequency, a temporary access order should be made allowing access in the community or at M.T.'s home rather than at the supervised family center.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change child support and sought to fix arrears dating back to January 1, 2015.

The respondent father argued that arrears should only be calculated from June 2016, when the mother first raised the issue.

The court applied the fourfold test from D.B.S. v. S.R.G. and determined that the effective notice date was June 2016, not January 1, 2015.

The court found no blameworthy conduct by the father, who had complied with all court orders and provided income information to the mother.

The court fixed arrears at $10,259.13 from June 1, 2016 to February 28, 2018, to be paid at $350 per month.

The court declined to order the father to pay for orthodontic treatment as a section 7 expense due to insufficient information regarding necessity and reasonableness.

A costs decision in a family law matter concerning a motion to prevent relocation.

The father sought to prevent the mother from relocating with their child to Alberta.

The mother withdrew her relocation request after receiving a Voice of the Child Report.

The parties disagreed on costs allocation.

The court found that neither party acted unreasonably and declined to award costs to either party, applying principles that discourage cost awards in settlement situations and emphasizing the importance of the issues involved.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment in a status review application concerning a child who had been in care for nearly four years following apprehension due to physical and sexual abuse.

The child's mother sought to have the child returned to her care, but was in an ongoing intimate relationship with the man who had previously abused the child.

The court granted the Society's motion and ordered that the child remain in extended society care with access to the mother and siblings, finding that the mother's continued relationship with the abuser presented an ongoing risk to the child and that she had not demonstrated sufficient insight into the protection concerns.

A foster parent sought expanded rights of participation in a child protection proceeding at the access stage following a crown ward order.

The foster parent requested disclosure of the Society file (excluding the Kin Assessment), the ability to attend trial, cross-examine witnesses, present evidence and make submissions, and the ability to participate in arguments regarding admissibility of evidence.

The maternal grandmother opposed the motion, arguing that expanded participation was akin to party status and would be procedurally unfair.

The court granted the motion, finding that at the post-finding stage, a less restrictive approach should apply to foster parent participation, particularly where the foster parent is the identified permanency plan and has a legal interest in the outcome.

The father brought a motion seeking to enforce the terms of a temporary order regarding unsupervised access and to determine reasonable section 7 expenses for the child's special needs.

The mother opposed the transition to unsupervised access and sought confirmation of various extraordinary expenses including speech therapy, occupational therapy, tutoring, after-school care, and summer camps.

The court determined which expenses were reasonable and necessary in relation to the child's best interests and the parties' means, fixed a monthly contribution amount for section 7 expenses, and ordered the commencement of unsupervised access.