Kathleen Bingham

The appellant appealed a finding of contempt for failing to comply with a consent order requiring the parties to enroll their children in counselling to facilitate effective co-parenting.

The motion judge found beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant wilfully obstructed the counselling process.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's factual findings or interpretation of the order.

The Children's Aid Society of Hamilton brought a motion to terminate a supervision order concerning a child who had suffered severe, unexplained head injuries as an infant.

Despite positive developments in the parents' care and compliance with supervision, the court dismissed the motion, deeming it premature given the horrific nature of the initial injuries and the unresolved culpability of the parents.

The existing supervision order was continued, emphasizing the court's responsibility to protect vulnerable children in cases of severe abuse.

The mother (A.H.) brought a motion for temporary care of her child (D.), seeking placement with her under supervision or expanded access.

The Children's Aid Society of Hamilton (CAS) opposed, seeking continued care and a finding that the child was not First Nations, Inuk, or Métis.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer supported the mother.

The court found no reasonable grounds to believe the child would suffer harm if returned to the mother under supervision.

Applying the two-part test under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, the court ordered the child's return to the mother's care via an eight-week transitional schedule with specific supervision terms.

The finding regarding the child's Indigenous status was unopposed and granted.

Following the dismissal of the respondent's motion to change a final spousal support order, the applicant sought costs.

The court found the applicant was entirely successful and had made a reasonable offer to settle that triggered full indemnity costs consequences under Rule 18(14).

The respondent's conduct in pursuing a meritless motion shortly after the final order was deemed highly unreasonable.

The court awarded the applicant costs of $6,302.00 and designated the award as a support order enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

The respondent brought a motion to change a final order, seeking to terminate or reduce his spousal support obligation of $1,750 per month.

He argued that he had experienced significant financial hardship, including eviction, and that the applicant's receipt of divided CPP credits constituted a material change.

The court found that the respondent's financial difficulties were primarily due to his own accumulation of support arrears and costs awards.

The court also held that the division of CPP credits did not constitute double dipping.

Finding no material change in circumstances for either party, the court dismissed the motion to change.

Following a 34-year marriage, the applicant sought ongoing and retroactive spousal support.

The respondent conceded entitlement but argued income should be imputed to the applicant, who worked part-time at a grocery store.

The court declined to impute income, finding the applicant was making reasonable efforts given her limited work history and significant health issues, including epilepsy and post-concussive syndrome.

The court ordered ongoing spousal support of $1,750 per month and retroactive support commencing from the date the matrimonial home was sold.

In a family law proceeding where the parties sought to incorporate Minutes of Settlement into a final order, the issue arose whether a police enforcement clause should be included to enforce custody and access provisions.

The court reviewed the statutory authority under s. 36 of the Children’s Law Reform Act and extensive jurisprudence concerning police enforcement of parenting orders.

It held that such clauses are a remedy of last resort intended for immediate or specific risks such as unlawful withholding or abduction, not as an open‑ended mechanism for anticipated future non‑compliance.

The court emphasized the potential psychological harm to children and the improper delegation of sensitive parenting disputes to police.

The proposed police enforcement clause was rejected and the remaining terms of the settlement were incorporated into the order.

Following a successful motion striking the plaintiff’s statement of claim, certain defendants sought costs including substantial indemnity costs.

The court considered the parties’ extensive submissions regarding delay, cross-examinations, and the complexity of the motion.

While the defendants were wholly successful and entitled to costs, the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the plaintiff’s conduct did not rise to an abuse of process.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs and rejected the plaintiff’s request to stay the costs determination pending the outcome of a human rights application in another forum.