Julia Tremain

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.

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.

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.