Keith Randall Newell

The moving party brought a motion to extend the limitation period under s. 2(8) of the Family Law Act to permit him to bring a claim for an equalization payment under s. 5.

The parties separated in 2014, and the limitation period expired by May 2021.

The court found that the moving party had apparent grounds for relief, the delay was incurred in good faith as he had made regular payments toward the carrying costs of the matrimonial home and the parties had deferred discussions about a buyout, and there was no substantial prejudice to the responding party.

The motion was granted and the limitation period was extended.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking to have the respondent father found in contempt of several court orders, including alleged failures to administer medication to their child, transporting the child on an e-bike, producing an accurate income valuation report, and complying with costs orders.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding that the applicant had not proven the alleged breaches beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the required standard for contempt.

The decision clarified that a failure to comply with a payment order is excluded as a ground for contempt under the Family Law Rules and that the orders regarding medical decision-making and the valuation report were not sufficiently clear and unequivocal to support a contempt finding.

The Children's Aid Society of the Niagara Region brought a motion for summary judgment to place two children, A. (5 years old) and H. (17 months old), in extended society care for adoption without parental access.

The Society cited parental instability, substance misuse, and lack of engagement.

The mother (M.B.) and father (D.J.) opposed, arguing for a trial and asserting the Society had not provided adequate support.

The court found the children were in continued need of protection and ordered extended society care for both, noting that statutory timelines for interim care had been exceeded.

However, the court found genuine issues for trial regarding access for M.B. and D.J., as the Society failed to provide sufficient evidence that access would impair adoption opportunities or was not in the children's best interests.

Access for J.S.J.M. (H.'s father) was denied due to complete lack of involvement.

The applicant mother sought sole custody, child support, section 7 expenses, and spousal support from the respondent father.

The parties resolved custody and access prior to trial.

The court determined the father's income for support purposes, including grossing up tax-free structured settlement income, but declined to impute additional employment income.

The court ordered retroactive and ongoing child support and section 7 expenses.

The applicant's claim for spousal support was dismissed, as the court applied the Molodowich factors and found the parties did not live together in a conjugal relationship and therefore the applicant was not a 'spouse' under the Family Law Act.

The children's aid society apprehended a child and applied for a finding that the child was in need of protection.

The society, the father, and the paternal grandmother all sought temporary care and custody of the child.

The court found that both the father and the grandmother had charge of the child immediately before the intervention.

Due to the parents' history of domestic violence, substance abuse, and mental health crises, the court concluded there was a risk of harm if the child was returned to the parents.

The court ordered that the child remain in the temporary care of the paternal grandmother pursuant to section 51(2)(c) of the Child and Family Services Act.

This trial concerned the nature of a father's access to his 8-year-old daughter, sole custody with the maternal grandmother, and child support.

The father sought unsupervised access, while the grandmother requested continued supervised access at a centre.

The court, applying the "best interests of the child" test, found that the father, despite cognitive limitations, was capable of parenting in a secondary role with support.

The court ordered expanded access for the father, transitioning from supervised by his parents to monitored, with a future review for unsupervised overnight access.

Counselling for the child and parties was also ordered, and child support payments were adjusted and made retroactive.

The parties separated after an 11-year cohabitation and marriage during which they operated a joint property maintenance business.

The applicant sought an equalization of net family property and spousal support.

The court preferred the applicant's evidence due to the respondent's failure to provide accurate financial disclosure and valuations.

The court determined the value of disputed assets, including a partially built home and business equipment, and ordered the respondent to pay an equalization payment of $161,727.28 (as corrected in the addendum).

The court also found the applicant entitled to spousal support on both compensatory and non-compensatory grounds, imputing an income of $80,000 to the respondent and ordering him to pay $800 per month for five years.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order that the one-year-old child be made a Crown ward without access for the purpose of adoption.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing she had made progress in addressing protection concerns.

The court found that the mother had failed to adequately address long-standing issues with substance abuse and mental health, and that there was no realistic possibility of the child being returned to her care.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial, and ordered Crown wardship without access.

The applicant child protection agency brought a summary judgment motion seeking a Crown wardship order without access for the purpose of adoption.

The respondents each filed plans of care proposing that the child be placed in their respective care under supervision.

The court found overwhelming evidence of the mother’s long-standing inability to parent, including prior Crown wardship orders for other children and expert evidence regarding cognitive limitations.

The father’s proposed plan of care was also rejected due to significant mental health issues, criminal history, substance use, lack of cooperation with the agency, and failure to recognize the child’s developmental delays.

The court held that the respondents failed to raise any genuine issue requiring a trial and granted summary judgment making the child a Crown ward without access.

In a child protection proceeding, the society sought Crown wardship without access in relation to a young child who had been apprehended due to malnourishment and remained in foster care with significant special needs.

The parents had been given time under a prior temporary wardship order to become capable of caring for the child but had not demonstrated progress.

The mother failed to file an answer or plan of care, and the father’s proposed plan relied on returning the child to the care of both parents without addressing the mother’s deficits or the child’s significant needs.

Pending the status review, the court considered the child’s best interests and the need for stability and permanency.

The court ordered that parental access be suspended temporarily to minimize disruption to the child and encourage timely participation in the proceeding.

The Children's Aid Society appealed a trial judge's order granting a mother and aunt access to two children who had been made Crown wards.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in law by ignoring the statutory presumption against access to Crown wards and improperly placing the burden of proof on the Society.

The court also found the trial judge misapprehended the evidence regarding the beneficial nature of the access and its impact on the children's future opportunities for a permanent and stable adoptive placement.

The appeal was allowed, the access order for the mother and aunt was terminated, and the order was left silent on sibling access to allow the Society to facilitate it.