Julia Tremain

The appellant appealed a Superior Court of Justice decision that dismissed an appeal from a child protection order made in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the appeal judge's conclusions regarding the inapplicability of the federal Conflict of Interest Act, the absence of a reasonable apprehension of judicial bias, and the delay in releasing the initial decision.

The Court of Appeal declined to entertain arguments or fresh evidence relating to the merits of the initial decision, as those issues were not pursued before the appeal judge.

The appeal and fresh evidence application were dismissed.

The self-represented appellant brought a motion within an appeal of a publication ban order, seeking a court order to compel the Toronto Police Service to investigate the Children's Aid Society of Toronto, the Office of the Children's Lawyer, and other individuals for alleged child trafficking and fraud.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that police do not owe a private or public duty to investigate criminal complaints and their discretion cannot be fettered by a court order of mandamus.

The applicants (aunt and uncle) sought temporary sole decision-making and guardianship of a four-year-old child following the death of the child's mother.

The respondent (father), who had not seen the child in over two years, sought immediate unsupervised parenting time.

The court found it had jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act and granted the applicants temporary sole decision-making, noting their established care for the child and the father's lack of relationship.

The court ordered supervised parenting time for the father to gradually reintroduce him to the child, balancing the child's need for stability with the goal of developing a relationship.

The appellant biological mother appealed a temporary order granting the respondent customary caregiver specified parenting time with the child.

The appellant also sought to stay the caregiver's application under the Children's Law Reform Act, arguing the Ontario Court of Justice lacked jurisdiction over matters engaging the federal Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families.

Applying recent appellate jurisprudence, the Superior Court held that the Ontario Court of Justice retains jurisdiction to hear such proceedings and oversee customary care disputes.

The appeal to stay the application was dismissed, and the temporary parenting time order, as previously varied, was continued.

The applicant mother sought a court order permitting her to register her son in school in Toronto pending determination of the respondent father's Hague Convention application for return of the children to Michigan.

The respondent father opposed the motion, arguing the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction to make such an order.

The court dismissed the motion on jurisdictional grounds.

The respondent subsequently claimed costs of $6,513.43 on a full recovery basis.

The court declined to award costs to the respondent, finding that his refusal to permit the child to attend school in Toronto pending the Hague application was unreasonable behavior that served to punish the child rather than protect his interests.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal in a family law matter involving custody of a child.

The respondent father sought costs on a full recovery basis totaling $105,350.14 for the motion to stay, motion to admit fresh evidence, and the appeal.

The appellant mother sought either no costs or a modest award due to her strained financial circumstances, having already been ordered to pay $200,000 in trial costs and earning approximately $40,000 annually.

The court awarded costs to the respondent father in the reduced sum of $40,000, considering the length and complexity of the proceedings, the importance of the issues, proportionality, and the appellant's financial circumstances.

A 14-year-old boy had been systematically alienated from his father by his mother through years of denigration, false allegations, and manipulation.

The trial judge found the mother had engaged in parental alienation and ordered a reversal of custody, placing the child with the father and suspending contact with the mother for six months to allow for reconciliation.

The mother and the Office of the Children's Lawyer appealed, arguing the trial judge erred in applying the best interests test, imposing an extreme remedy without expert evidence or therapeutic support, improperly delegating decision-making to therapists, and ordering therapy without the child's consent in violation of the Health Care Consent Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable or overriding error and upholding the trial judge's discretionary decision-making in this difficult family law matter.

The mother sought to claim retroactive section 7 expenses dating back to 2002 for the parties' two adult children.

The father opposed the claim, noting that section 7 expenses were neither pleaded nor awarded in a 2002 child support order.

Applying the D.B.S. factors, the court found that the mother had no reasonable excuse for the delay, the father's conduct was not blameworthy, the circumstances of the adult children did not justify the order, and a retroactive award would cause hardship to the father.

The court ruled that the mother could not seek retroactive section 7 expenses and awarded costs to the father.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion within a status review application seeking to place two children (ages 9 and 7) in the temporary care and custody of their maternal grandfather in the Cayman Islands, subject to supervision.

The father opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion seeking placement of the children with himself and his partner.

The court granted the society's motion, finding that the children had been in foster care for nearly two years and that the father had not met his onus of establishing that the best interests of the children required a change in their care.

The maternal grandfather had demonstrated strong parenting skills with the two younger siblings and had a positive home study.

The court ordered placement with the maternal grandfather effective August 29, 2015, with telephone and Skype access to the father, his partner, and the paternal grandmother.

A child protection society sought an order excluding a 14-year-old child from attending all future court hearings in child protection proceedings, arguing that her presence would cause emotional harm.

The child, represented by independent counsel, opposed the motion and expressed her wish to attend all court appearances.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the child had experienced nightmares and emotional distress, the evidence did not establish that court attendance itself would cause emotional harm.

The distress appeared linked to other factors, including anxiety about a proposed treatment placement in the United States.

The court established a detailed protocol to manage the child's court attendance and minimize exposure to conflict among the adults involved in the case.