Justine Lyons

The Children's Aid Society brought a protection application regarding two children.

The older child disclosed sexual abuse by the mother's new partner, and the mother failed to protect the child, eventually resuming her relationship with the abuser.

The children were placed in the temporary care of their paternal grandparents.

At trial, the court found the children in need of protection.

The father sought custody but had moved to a new city with a partner who had seven children recovering from severe trauma, and the older child refused contact with him.

The court granted a final custody order to the paternal grandparents under section 102 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, finding it in the children's best interests, and ordered a structured access schedule for the parents.

The moving party in a family law proceeding brought a motion seeking a vesting order to transfer ownership of an inherited property into the responding party's name, arguing it was necessary to make the property available to their joint creditor.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction under the Estates Administration Act because the responding party only had a beneficial interest in the residue of the estate, not a specific property interest.

Furthermore, the court held it lacked jurisdiction under the Courts of Justice Act and the Family Law Act because there was no existing order establishing a payment liability against the responding party.

Following the dismissal of the respondent mother's motion to change the children's primary residence, the applicant father sought costs of $68,490.51 on a full recovery basis.

The court found that the father's bill of costs inappropriately included fees for the entire litigation rather than just the motion.

The court rejected the father's allegations of bad faith and unreasonable conduct by the mother.

Recognizing the importance of proportionality in family law matters, the court fixed costs at $6,500 inclusive, payable in installments.

The respondent mother brought a motion for a temporary order to change the children's primary residence from the applicant father's home in Waterford to her residence in Toronto pending trial.

The father had been granted temporary sole custody a year prior after the mother removed the children without consent.

The court dismissed the motion, applying the principle that established temporary primary residency orders should not be changed pending trial absent compelling evidence of absolute necessity.

The court found the evidence regarding the children's best interests to be incomplete and contradictory, making a change in the status quo inappropriate before a full trial.

The appellant mother appealed a trial decision making two of her children Crown wards without access and granting custody of her third child, who has Down syndrome, to the biological father without access to the mother.

The mother argued the trial judge erred in assessing evidence, including child hearsay and medical evidence, and in denying her access.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence, credibility findings, or determination that access was not in the children's best interests given the mother's history of physical discipline, lack of insight, and failure to address the children's needs.