Sexual abuse

The applicant child protection agency brought a Wagg motion seeking production of the complete Crown Brief regarding pending criminal charges against the respondent father for sexual offences against his child.

The Attorney General opposed production, arguing it could prejudice the ongoing criminal prosecution and taint witnesses.

The court granted the motion, finding that the agency met the test under Rule 19(11) of the Family Law Rules and that the rights and interests of the parties in the child protection proceeding outweighed any possible prejudice to the Attorney General in the criminal proceedings.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for damages arising from childhood sexual abuse, arguing the claim was barred by a prior settlement and consent order in Family Court.

The plaintiff argued she was a party under disability at the time and the settlement did not comply with Rule 7.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the prior settlement was not approved by a judge as required by Rule 7.08, was improvident, and lacked proper supporting materials.

The court held that strict compliance with Rule 7.08 is necessary to protect parties under disability, and therefore the prior order did not bind the plaintiff or bar her action.

The applicant father sought a transfer of primary care and decision-making responsibility for the parties' two young children.

The respondent mother had engaged in a severe and prolonged campaign of parental alienation, including making multiple false allegations of physical and sexual abuse to the police and children's aid societies, and sabotaging court-ordered reunification therapy.

The court found that the mother's conduct caused significant emotional harm to the children and that she was incapable of supporting their relationship with the father.

The court transferred primary care and decision-making to the father, ordered a 90-day period of no contact for the mother (save for supervised therapeutic time), and found the mother in contempt of a previous access order.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for temporary care and custody of two children, aged 7 and 2, following allegations that the mother's former partner sexually abused the 7-year-old.

The mother and paternal grandmother opposed the motion, seeking the children's return to their care.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children were at risk of harm if returned to the mother or placed with the paternal grandmother, citing their failure to protect the children and abide by previous supervision conditions.

The court ordered the children to remain in the temporary care of the Society, with access at the Society's discretion.

The children's aid society brought a protection application seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection due to emotional harm caused by the mother.

Following the parents' separation, the mother repeatedly made unfounded allegations that the father was sexually and physically abusing the child, subjecting the child to numerous police and medical investigations.

The court found that the mother's fixed, false belief system and coaching caused the child severe anxiety and emotional harm.

The court concluded the child was in need of protection, granted sole custody to the father, and ordered that the mother's access be supervised.

The representative plaintiffs in three related class actions concerning the employment status of major junior hockey players sought approval of a $30 million settlement.

The court declined to approve the settlement because of an eleventh-hour objection raising concerns that the standard form release in the settlement agreement might bar class members from pursuing other existing class actions against the defendants for concussions, sexual abuse, and anti-competitive behaviour.

The court found that the release needed to be renegotiated to ensure it did not prejudice class members' rights in those other actions.

The Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that two children were in need of protection and an order placing them in the deemed custody of their maternal aunt.

The father opposed the motion, seeking a finding under a different subsection and an order placing the children in foster care.

The court granted the Society's motion, finding the children in need of protection due to the father's substance abuse, domestic violence, and failure to protect them from sexual abuse.

The court gave significant weight to the children's strong and consistent wishes to remain with their aunt and ordered deemed custody to her, with access to the father and paternal grandparents subject to the children's wishes.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that four children were in need of protection due to the mother's continued relationship with a man who had sexually assaulted one of the children's friends and was alleged to have abused one of the children.

The mother provided sworn evidence that she had ended the relationship and had not exposed the children to the man for over a year.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the conflicting evidence regarding the mother's intentions and actions raised a genuine issue of credibility that could only be resolved at trial.

The appellant physician was found guilty of professional misconduct involving sexual abuse of young boys.

He appealed the Discipline Committee's decision, arguing that the summons power under s. 76(1) of the Health Professions Procedural Code violated his s. 8 Charter rights against unreasonable search and seizure, and that the College's delay in prosecuting the case amounted to an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the summons power is constitutional in the regulatory context as it is properly constrained by relevance and privilege.

The Court also found that the delay was not inordinate given the concurrent criminal proceedings, and the appellant did not suffer significant prejudice.