Justice Penny J. Jones

This is a costs decision arising from a ten-day custody and access trial.

The respondent mother was successful in obtaining sole custody with sole decision-making authority on all parenting issues except vaccinations, which was awarded to the applicant father.

The mother sought costs of $59,085.72 at a 50% scale of recovery.

The court fixed costs at $25,000.00 inclusive of disbursements and HST, finding the mother was the successful party entitled to costs but adjusting the award to account for divided success on the vaccination issue and applying principles of reasonableness and proportionality.

A custody and access dispute between two parents of a six-year-old child.

The father sought sole custody with the child relocating to Orangeville, while the mother sought to maintain the status quo with the child remaining in her care in Toronto.

The court granted sole custody to the mother, finding that the child had been living in a stable home environment for four years, was thriving in her school and community, and that disrupting this arrangement would be traumatic.

The father was granted specified access on a two-week rotating basis.

A significant issue involved the mother's hesitancy regarding vaccinations; the court granted the father sole decision-making authority over vaccination decisions, including COVID-19 vaccination if it becomes available.

A young person was charged with public mischief under section 140(1)(a) of the Criminal Code for allegedly making a false statement to police accusing another person of sexual assault and sexual exploitation.

The Crown's case relied heavily on an apology letter in which the accused appeared to admit lying about the allegations.

The court found that the letter was obtained through reprehensible tactics involving manipulation and coercion by the accused person and his lawyer, who used false promises of employment to pressure a third party to obtain the letter.

The court also found that the accused's original statement to police was not substantially false when compared to security video evidence.

The charge was dismissed.

The Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion under Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules seeking a finding that a child was in need of protection under section 37(2)(b)(i)(ii) of the Child and Family Services Act and a dispositional order for crown wardship with a view to adoption.

The respondent father opposed both orders and sought return of the child under a supervision order.

The respondent mother consented to the crown wardship order.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial on the finding of need of protection or on the crown wardship order, and granted both.

However, the court determined that the access issue raised complex triable issues requiring a viva voce hearing and ordered a trial of that issue, appointing the Children's Lawyer to represent the child.

This is a motion for access brought by the father to his two children within the context of a temporary care and custody motion in a child protection application.

The father faced criminal charges for sexual assault and sexual interference with his daughter.

The Children's Aid Society opposed access, arguing that contact with the alleged abuser would be harmful to the child during trauma assessment and treatment.

The court found credible and trustworthy evidence of sexual molestation but determined that supervised access could be safely structured.

The court rejected the Society's reliance on an unqualified expert opinion and found a presumption in favour of access under the Child and Family Services Act.

The court granted temporary supervised access at the Society's office at least twice per week, subject to specific conditions.