Kelly C. Tranquilli

The respondent brought a motion to change his spousal support obligation due to job loss and financial difficulties.

The applicant brought a cross-motion seeking to stay the respondent's motion until he complied with a prior final order regarding spousal support arrears and joint lines of credit.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion to stay, finding the respondent's non-compliance was not deliberate or wilful, and directed the respondent's motion to change to proceed to trial, as oral evidence was necessary to determine if a material change in circumstances warranted variation.

The plaintiff sought to enforce a verbal agreement for a $115,000 loan and $844.90 for airfare against her former son-in-law, the defendant.

The defendant denied the existence of any loan or agreement to repay the airfare.

The court found no legally enforceable agreement, noting vague, inconsistent, and unreliable evidence from the plaintiff and her daughter, and the defendant's admission of having sworn a false affidavit in prior matrimonial litigation.

The claim was dismissed due to insufficient evidence to establish a contract.

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.