Juliet Montes

The applicant mother appealed an order directing the return of her infant son to New York under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and sought an urgent stay of that order pending appeal.

The motion judge refused the requested stay, finding that the mother did not meet the onus to demonstrate irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience did not favour her.

The court emphasized the Hague Convention's mandate for prompt return and that delays frustrate its purpose.

The applicant father brought an application under the Hague Convention for the return of the parties' one-year-old child to New York State.

The respondent mother had removed the child to Ontario without the father's knowledge or consent.

The court found that the child's habitual residence was New York State and that the father was exercising his custody rights at the time of removal.

The mother opposed the return, alleging domestic violence and substance abuse by the father, arguing that returning the child would pose a grave risk of harm under Article 13(b).

The court held that the mother failed to meet the high threshold required to establish a grave risk of harm or an intolerable situation.

The application was granted, and the child was ordered to be returned to New York State, subject to certain undertakings by the father.

The father brought a motion to change seeking sole or joint decision-making responsibility and maximum unsupervised parenting time, alleging the children were at risk of physical and sexual abuse in the mother's care.

The mother brought a cross-motion to terminate the father's parenting time entirely and to remove requirements for his consent for travel and passports.

The court found no material change in circumstances to alter decision-making, as the father's abuse allegations were unsubstantiated.

The court declined to terminate the father's parenting time, instead ordering a graduated schedule starting with supervised visits.

The court granted the mother's request to dispense with the father's consent for passports and travel.

The parties separated after a 16-year marriage.

Most parenting issues were resolved prior to or during the trial.

The remaining issues for the court were the equalization of net family property and who should hold the children's passports.

The court ordered the applicant mother to hold the passports for the two children in her primary care, and the respondent father to hold the passport for their special needs child.

On equalization, the court found the applicant did not own a plot of land or a school in Pakistan, and that the wedding jewellery was jointly owned.

The respondent was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $63,981.73.

In a child protection trial under the CYFSA, the court found the child in need of protection based on risk of physical harm, risk of emotional harm, and the mother’s unavailability at the time of apprehension.

The court accepted evidence of serious, longstanding, and largely untreated mental health concerns affecting the mother’s ability to regulate conduct, cooperate with professionals, and make child-focused decisions, and also found unresolved risk arising from an adult child residing in the home.

Although the mother demonstrated strengths in housing, instrumental care, and positive access, the court held that neither return nor supervision was sufficient to protect the child because the requisite cooperation, insight, and reliability were absent.

A six-month interim society care order was made, with specified minimum unsupervised access for both parents.

The applicant mother sought primary care, sole decision-making, and supervised parenting time for the parties' three-year-old child, citing the respondent father's ongoing drug addiction.

The father sought shared parenting and tendered a forged negative hair follicle drug test during the trial.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making and primary residence, finding the father lacked stability and a viable financial plan.

The father's parenting time was ordered to be supervised until he could prove he was free of street drugs.

Child support was imputed to the father starting in 2023, and he was ordered to pay full indemnity costs due to his egregious litigation conduct.

The mother appealed trial orders granting the father sole custody and supervised access, and requiring her to undergo a psychiatric assessment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings on the children's best interests and the jurisdiction to order the assessment.

The Court admitted a late psychiatric report as fresh evidence but gave it little weight due to its timing and lack of proper context, noting the mother's history of non-compliance with court orders.

The moving party brought a motion to set aside the Registrar's dismissal of her appeal for failure to perfect on time.

The delay was primarily caused by the moving party's initial appeal counsel, who failed to address fee waivers and properly serve documents.

The Court of Appeal applied the Paulsson factors and found that it was in the interests of justice to set aside the dismissal, as the moving party should not suffer the consequences of her lawyer's oversight, the appeal materials were essentially ready, and there was no prejudice to the children's best interests.

The motion was granted and the appeal was permitted to proceed.

Following a successful motion by the plaintiffs to stay a Small Claims Court action brought by the defendants, the parties could not agree on costs.

The plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs of $10,849.06, citing unnecessary delays and late consent to relief by the defendants.

The court found the plaintiffs were the successful party and entitled to costs.

Applying Rule 57.01, the court awarded the plaintiffs costs in the elevated amount of $10,048.50, noting the defendants' conduct unnecessarily lengthened the proceeding.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision which found the Board had exclusive jurisdiction over the tenants' application for rent abatement.

The landlord had previously commenced a Superior Court application for unpaid occupancy fees, and the tenants subsequently applied to the Board for rent abatement due to alleged lack of heat.

The Divisional Court held that the Board erred in law by concluding it could not decline jurisdiction and by failing to consider whether the tenants' application was an abuse of process.

The Court found that allowing the Board application to proceed would lead to duplicative proceedings and inconsistent findings, as the tenants were raising the exact same issues as a set-off defense in the Superior Court action.

The appeal was allowed and the tenants' Board application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The Conlons (plaintiffs) brought a motion to either stay or transfer their Small Claims Court (SCC) action against JP Quality Care Construction Inc. and James Palmerton to the Superior Court of Justice (SCJ) and consolidate it with their existing SCJ action.

The SCC action involved claims for unpaid invoices and unjust enrichment related to construction services, while the SCJ action involved breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims by the Conlons, and a significant counterclaim by JP for business interference and defamation.

The court denied the transfer, finding the SCC issues not complex enough to warrant it, but granted a stay of the SCC action pending the determination of the SCJ action to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and ensure the Conlons' access to justice, as their counterclaim exceeded the SCC monetary limit.