6 total
Appeal of Crown wardship order dismissed; trial judge made no palpable and overriding error.
The mother appealed a trial decision ordering that her child be made a Crown ward without access for the purpose of adoption.
She argued the trial judge over-relied on a parenting capacity assessment and erred by not admitting a psychiatric report.
She also sought to introduce fresh evidence on appeal, including notes regarding her interactions with her second child and a new psychiatric report.
The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error by the trial judge.
The court held that the trial judge properly considered all evidence, correctly excluded the improperly tendered psychiatric report, and that the fresh evidence, while admissible, would not have altered the outcome given the mother's cognitive limitations and lack of support.
Charter Appeal dismissed
A child protection application brought by the agency seeking custody orders for two children under section 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.
The mother opposed the application and sought dismissal, alternatively requesting return of the younger child and generous access to both children.
The court found both children to be in need of protection based on risk of physical and emotional harm, and made custody orders in favour of both fathers with supervised and unsupervised access provisions for the mother.
The case involved complex procedural issues, the mother's non-cooperation with assessments, and consideration of the children's wishes and best interests.
Substantial indemnity costs awarded after unreasonable appeal in child protection proceedings.
Following dismissal of an appeal from an interim child protection order of the Ontario Court of Justice, the court addressed costs.
Applying s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Family Law Rule 24, the court noted the presumption that the successful party is entitled to costs.
The court found the appellant’s conduct unreasonable, including pursuing an unnecessary appeal of an interim procedural order, filing extensive irrelevant materials, and causing delay in the underlying child protection proceedings.
Considering the importance of child placement issues and the need to discourage litigation conduct that interferes with timely resolution, the court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the respondent child protection agency.
Appeal of an interim interim child protection order placing the child with her father dismissed.
The appellant mother appealed an interim interim order made by the Ontario Court of Justice in a child protection proceeding.
The child had been apprehended by the agency and placed with her father under supervision.
The appellant was not present at the initial hearing.
The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no appealable error in the lower court's decision to adjourn the matter and make a temporary order for the child's care and custody while ordering the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer.
Parent’s motions challenging child protection orders and seeking stay dismissed.
A self-represented parent brought multiple motions within a child protection appeal seeking certiorari, a stay of an interim custody order, disclosure orders against the child protection agency, access relief, and removal of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.
The court held that the lower court had jurisdiction to issue the interim order placing the child with the father under agency supervision and found no breach of natural justice sufficient to justify certiorari.
Applying the stay test under the Child and Family Services Act, the court found the appellant failed to establish a serious issue, irreparable harm, or that a stay would be in the child’s best interests.
Additional requests concerning disclosure, access, and removal of the child’s counsel were denied due to insufficient evidence and the paramountcy of the child’s best interests.
Appeal allowed in part to correct a conceded double-counting error in the equalization calculation.
The appellant appealed an order regarding the equalization of net family property.
She argued that a 1979 agreement excluded the matrimonial home from the calculation and that the respondent's alleged lottery winnings should be included.
The Court of Appeal dismissed these arguments, finding the agreement did not exclude the home and there was no evidence of lottery winnings.
However, the court allowed the appeal in part to correct a conceded double-counting error regarding a vehicle, reducing the equalization payment by $10,500.
