Kerry K. Gearin

In a family motion concerning temporary parenting arrangements, the court addressed sexual abuse allegations advanced by the mother as a basis to deny the father access.

After reviewing the chronology, the circumstances of the alleged disclosures, inconsistencies in the evidence, the lack of opportunity, and the contents of police and child protection investigations, the court was not persuaded there was any truth to the allegations and ordered reasonable access.

The court also requested the involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, made a restricted access and publication order under s. 70 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, directed production of the unredacted child protection file, and declined to permit filing of police interview videos at that stage.

Costs were awarded to the father on the main issues.

The Respondent Father brought a motion seeking a declaration that the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction over the custody of the child and requesting the recognition and enforcement of a Qatari custody order.

The Applicant Mother opposed the motion.

The court determined that while the child's habitual residence was Qatar due to the Mother's abduction, Ontario nevertheless had jurisdiction under section 22(1)(b) of the Children's Law Reform Act, as all six statutory criteria were met, including the child's substantial connection to Ontario and the balance of convenience.

The court declined to recognize and enforce the Qatari order, citing the Father's apparent forum shopping, conflicting foreign orders, and his failure to prove that Qatari law considered the child's best interests.

The Father's motion was dismissed.

A mother sought to have her two young children returned to her care under child protection supervision, or alternatively for generous access.

The children had been apprehended following allegations of physical assault by the mother.

The mother was charged criminally and subject to bail conditions prohibiting contact with the children.

The Society opposed access pending completion of a trauma assessment, citing the need to "better understand what is going on." The court ordered supervised access of a minimum of two hours twice weekly, finding that complete separation from the primary caregiver for over six months posed risks of emotional harm and that supervised access could protect the children while maintaining their only significant family tie.

The landlord brought a motion to extend the time for enforcement of an eviction order previously upheld by the Divisional Court.

The tenant had sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada, which the court characterized as frivolous and vexatious efforts to avoid enforcement.

The court rejected the tenant's allegations of bad faith against the landlord and granted the motion, ordering the tenancy terminated forthwith and a writ of possession to issue, enforceable on or after May 1, 2008.

The applicants, foster parents, sought $30,000 in costs against the respondent Children's Aid Society following an emergency judicial review where the court ordered the children to remain in the applicants' care.

The court noted that while Children's Aid Societies do not have immunity from costs, costs should be dealt with justly.

Although the court disagreed with the Society's actions in attempting to remove the children right before Christmas, it found no bad faith or unreasonable conduct, as the Society was acting to protect a child.

The request for costs was dismissed.

Following a successful appeal by a subsidized tenant against an eviction order, the court determined the costs of the proceeding.

The court found the landlord acted unreasonably and hastily in seeking eviction without investigation.

Recognizing the tenant's impecuniosity and the importance of access to justice, the court awarded costs for both the Tribunal hearing and the appeal, including a premium to encourage counsel to take on such cases, totalling $14,245.

The respondent children's aid society sought to remove two Crown Ward children from their long-term foster home and separate them, pending a review process.

The applicant foster parents applied for an injunction to prevent the removal.

The Divisional Court found no evidence of urgency or immediate harm, noting the children's need for continuity of care and to remain together.

The court ordered that the children remain in the foster home and continued the injunction pending the review process.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal ordering her eviction for allegedly assaulting another tenant.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the landlord's application, finding that the Tribunal failed to provide adequate reasons for its credibility findings and failed to properly consider relief from eviction under s. 84 of the Tenant Protection Act.

The Court noted the tenant's lack of prior history of violence, her success in the related criminal proceeding, and her responsibility for four minor children.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal that dismissed a motion to set aside an eviction order.

The Tribunal had found that the N11 agreement to terminate the tenancy was made voluntarily and without fraud, duress, or misrepresentation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law and noting that the Tribunal had properly considered the substance of the transaction and all surrounding circumstances.