Julie Bergeron

In a child protection proceeding, the father brought a motion to vary a temporary care and custody order to have the children placed in his care.

The children had previously been placed in the interim care of the Society after being removed from the mother's care.

The court applied the test for varying a temporary placement order, finding that the father's consistent and positive access, along with his viable plan for the children's care, constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court determined it was in the children's best interests to be placed in the temporary care and custody of the father, subject to Society supervision and a gradual integration plan, while maintaining the mother's access.

The Crown appealed an acquittal in a prosecution under the Smoke Free Ontario Act for selling tobacco to a minor.

The respondent corporation operated a truck stop convenience store where a 17-year-old purchased cigarettes without being asked for identification.

The Crown alleged the trial justice erred in finding the respondent established the due diligence defence.

The appeal court upheld the acquittal, finding the respondent had implemented comprehensive training, supervision, and compliance measures that resulted in three years of successful compliance checks following prior enforcement notices.

The appellant appealed from an order striking out his entire Answer pursuant to a consent order requiring disclosure of financial documentation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the settlement judge's jurisdiction to strike pleadings for failure to comply with disclosure obligations, finding that such orders may be made at settlement conferences to promote the overarching objectives of the Family Law Rules.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part, holding that the portion of the Answer relating to custody and access should not have been struck, as custody decisions must be based on the best interests of the children and require full participation of both parents.

The matter was ordered to proceed to trial on an expedited basis.

The applicant children's aid society applied for a status review, initially supporting the child's adoption by his foster mother, but later amending its application to support adoption by the child's paternal aunts.

The foster mother, who had cared for the child for 28 months and helped him overcome severe attachment and anxiety issues, was added as a party and sought to adopt him.

The court found that removing the child from the foster mother's care would cause significant emotional harm and that remaining with her was in his best interests.

Finding a legislative gap in the Child and Family Services Act that prevented a custody order in favour of a foster parent on a status review, the court exercised its parens patriae jurisdiction to declare the child a Crown ward with the express purpose of being adopted by the foster mother.

The appellant mother appealed a trial judge's decision declaring her child a Crown ward without access.

The mother argued the trial judge erred by placing too much importance on her young age, ignoring her efforts to remedy parenting deficiencies, and failing to properly apply the tests for the child's best interests, maximum time in care, and termination of access.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual conclusions or application of the law, including the consideration of the child's African Francophone heritage and the assessment of alternative plans.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario in a child protection matter.

The appellant, a foster-to-adopt mother, sought costs against the respondent child protection agency (Valoris Pour Enfants et Adultes de Prescott-Russell) for both the appeal before the Court of Appeal and the prior appeal before the Divisional Court.

The appellant argued that exceptional circumstances existed because the agency had acted unfairly in appealing the motion judge's decision granting her status in the proceedings.

The Court of Appeal declined to award costs, finding that the agency's decision to appeal did not warrant a costs award, particularly as the court's decision provided guidance on relevant factors for adding parties in child protection proceedings.

Following a successful motion to change a final order, the applicant sought costs of $17,475.34.

The court found the applicant was the substantially successful party and had behaved reasonably, including making a reasonable offer to settle.

The respondent's behaviour was found to be unreasonable.

Applying the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $6,000.

The mother brought a motion to change a final order regarding access and communication, and the father also sought variations.

The court found that the escalating, high-level conflict between the parents constituted a material change in circumstances.

To minimize the child's exposure to this conflict, the court ordered a strict, inflexible access schedule with detailed provisions for holidays, sick days, and clothing, and severely restricted communication between the parents.

Child support and proportional sharing of special expenses were also readjusted based on the parents' 2016 incomes.

A foster-to-adopt mother sought party status in child protection proceedings concerning a child placed in her care at seven months of age.

The child's biological parents' rights had been terminated, and the child protection society initially supported the foster-to-adopt mother's adoption plan but later changed course to support the paternal aunt's adoption plan.

The motion judge granted the foster-to-adopt mother party status.

The Divisional Court reversed, holding that foster parents should only be added as parties in exceptional circumstances and that the foster-to-adopt mother's existing participatory rights under the legislation were sufficient.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, reinstating the motion judge's order granting party status, finding that the paramount consideration of the child's best interests supported the foster-to-adopt mother's involvement as a party.

La requérante mère a demandé une modification de la structure parentale pour obtenir la garde exclusive en raison du manque de coopération de l'intimé père et de son non-respect d'une ordonnance antérieure.

L'intimé père s'est opposé à cette demande et a sollicité une garde partagée ainsi qu'une réduction de la pension alimentaire.

Le tribunal a constaté une relation parentale conflictuelle et problématique, rendant potentiellement la garde conjointe inopérante.

Une évaluation par le Bureau de l'avocat des enfants a été ordonnée pour obtenir des preuves objectives.

En attendant, le tribunal a rendu des ordonnances définitives concernant l'assurance vie du père, le maintien de la pension alimentaire à 1 000 $ par mois, et l'octroi de 768 $ d'arriérés pour dépenses spéciales et extraordinaires à la mère.

Des ordonnances provisoires ont également été émises pour l'accès estival, les méthodes de communication et les modalités d'échange des enfants.

The responding father brought a motion seeking multiple interim parenting-related orders, including a prohibition on the mother relocating more than five kilometres, orders concerning parenting structure and school attendance, restoration of a specific physician for the children, supervised access, and expanded disclosure from a child protection agency as well as medical and school records.

The court found no evidence that the mother intended to relocate or that the children lacked appropriate care, and held that the mother was presently meeting the children’s health and safety needs.

Given pending criminal charges prohibiting the father from contacting the children, the court determined it was premature to order supervised access.

The court also declined to revisit prior disclosure orders or compel disclosure from third-party institutions.

The motion was dismissed, with the exception of an order requiring the mother to provide 60 days’ notice of any relocation or school change.

Child protection agency sought summary judgment declaring three children in need of protection and requesting permanent Crown wardship for twin infants.

The evidence included medical findings of multiple fractures consistent with physical abuse inflicted while the children were in the care of the mother and her partner, along with evidence of parental instability and limited parenting capacity.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the twins’ protection status and their best interests, and found that adoption planning through Crown wardship was appropriate.

However, the court determined that a trial was required to decide the appropriate long‑term placement for the older child.

The biological father of the twins was permitted to participate and propose a care plan.

La requérante sollicitait une ordonnance alimentaire pour un enfant qui n’était pas l’enfant biologique de l’intimé, soutenant que celui-ci avait manifesté l’intention bien arrêtée de le traiter comme un enfant de sa famille.

Le tribunal a appliqué les principes issus de Spring v. Spring et a examiné objectivement la qualité de la relation, les responsabilités assumées, la discipline, le soutien financier et la perception de l’enfant.

La preuve a établi une relation réciproquement froide et non significative, un rôle parental principalement assumé par la requérante, et un soutien financier limité.

La demande d’aliments pour cet enfant a donc été rejetée, mais l’intimé a été condamné à rembourser 275,00 $ au titre de certaines dépenses pour les deux enfants biologiques des parties.

Costs decision arising from family law disclosure motions related to the valuation of corporations owned by the respondent spouse.

The applicant brought motions seeking contempt and an order requiring business valuations after the respondent failed to respond within the seven-day timeline set out in a prior disclosure order.

The court found that the respondent took a position inconsistent with the order and deliberately delayed the proceedings by failing to provide a timely response.

Although the contempt motion itself was unnecessary, the applicant was justified in bringing the motions to resolve the issue of corporate valuations.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the applicant.

Each parent brought a motion seeking determination of the primary residence of their young child as she was about to begin school.

The parties had previously operated under a shared custody arrangement following their separation, but the mother's relocation created practical difficulties once the child commenced school.

Applying the best interests test under s. 24(2) of the Children's Law Reform Act, the court evaluated each parent's proposed parenting plan, including schooling arrangements, caregiving availability, and the stability of the child’s daily routine.

The court found the mother’s proposal would provide the child with greater parental presence, fewer daily transitions, and better support during the school week.

A temporary order granted joint custody with primary weekday residence with the mother and extended weekend parenting time with the father.

Each parent brought a motion seeking determination of the primary residence of their young child as she was about to begin school.

The parties had previously operated under a shared custody arrangement following their separation, but the mother's relocation created practical difficulties once the child commenced school.

Applying the best interests test under s. 24(2) of the Children's Law Reform Act, the court evaluated each parent's proposed parenting plan, including schooling arrangements, caregiving availability, and the stability of the child’s daily routine.

The court found the mother’s proposal would provide the child with greater parental presence, fewer daily transitions, and better support during the school week.

A temporary order granted joint custody with primary weekday residence with the mother and extended weekend parenting time with the father.

The motion judge declared a two-year-old child in need of protection but ordered the child returned to the parents.

When the child protection worker inspected the parents' home the next day, she found it unsanitary and unsafe, and decided to proceed with a technical apprehension rather than returning the child immediately.

The parents remedied the defects and the child was returned a few days later.

The parents brought a motion for contempt of court, which the motion judge granted.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the contempt finding, holding that the original order was ambiguous regarding the agency's right to inspect and respond to safety concerns, and that the motion judge erred by resolving contradictory affidavit evidence on a quasi-criminal contempt motion.