Kelly C. Tranquilli

The applicant sought an interim non-depletion order regarding an art collection, alleging a joint family venture and unjust enrichment.

The court found that section 40 of the Family Law Act did not apply because there was no evidence that depletion would impair the spousal support claim.

The court also considered whether a Mareva injunction or an interim preservation order under the Rules of Civil Procedure was appropriate, but dismissed the motion without prejudice because the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding the particulars of the art collection, proprietary claims, and risk of depletion.

The Children’s Aid Society brought a status review application seeking extended society care for two children, E.P. and M.P., who had been in temporary care for approximately 1100 days.

The mother, father, and maternal grandmother (respondents) opposed this, proposing the children be returned to their care subject to Society supervision.

The court found the children continued to be in need of protection due to the respondents' ongoing addiction and mental health issues.

After evaluating all plans of care, the court determined that extended society care was in the children's best interests, given their complex behavioural and educational needs, tumultuous placement history, and the respondents' fragile recovery and inability to provide sustained safe care.

Access for all respondents was ordered to continue at the Society's discretion, subject to the children's wishes.

The appellant appealed his conviction on several offences, including unlawful confinement, assault, uttering death threats, mischief, and breaches of probation, stemming from two incidents in March and April 2016.

The appeal raised two main issues: whether the trial judge erred in limiting cross-examination of the complainant regarding a prior domestic altercation on the basis of the collateral fact rule or relevance, and whether the trial judge erred in assessing the complainant's credibility.

The appellate court found that the trial judge did not err in limiting cross-examination, as the collateral fact rule was not engaged and the questioning was deemed to be of too slight significance.

The court also upheld the trial judge's assessment of the complainant's credibility, noting that the trial judge was alive to inconsistencies and provided reasons for finding the complainant credible, and that the core of her allegations remained intact.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant mother brought a motion for an interim order to relocate with the two children from London, Ontario, to a town north of Oshawa, Ontario.

The relocation was sought due to financial instability, imminent eviction from the family home (owned by the paternal grandparents), and the respondent father's ongoing detention on criminal charges, which had resulted in suspended access and no financial support.

The respondent father opposed the motion, arguing it was premature and that relocation would disrupt the status quo.

The court granted the applicant's motion, finding compelling circumstances in the children's best interests, including the mother's financial and social isolation, the father's inability to provide access or support, and the imminent eviction.

The court emphasized that the father's criminal charges and detention materially affected the status quo and that the applicant's custodial position was likely to prevail at trial.