Lance Carey Talbot

The Children and Family Services of York Region (Society) withdrew a protection application.

The parents (respondents in the protection proceedings) sought costs against the Society, alleging failures in investigation, reassessment, and fair conduct, particularly regarding disclosure delays and the Society's failure to obtain critical records.

The court found that while the Society's initial decision to apprehend was reasonable given concurrent criminal charges and interviews, there were inexcusable delays in disclosure and non-compliance with court orders.

The court awarded the parents $1,373.47 in costs, comprising $1,000 for disclosure failures and $373.47 for the cost of obtaining the Children's Aid Society of Toronto (CAST) file.

This is a focused hearing on access issues following a summary judgment motion in a child protection matter under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

The court had previously made G.C.A. and E.A. crown wards, with a genuine issue remaining regarding G.C.A.'s access with the mother and maternal grandmother.

The focused hearing addressed the terms and conditions of access for G.C.A. with his mother and maternal grandmother, resulting in a detailed access order with graduated hours, overnight visits on specified occasions, and conditions regarding medication compliance and the presence of third parties.

The appellant, J.L., appealed a Crown wardship order without access for his child, JLC, and sought to adduce fresh evidence regarding JLC's native heritage.

The court dismissed the fresh evidence application, finding it did not meet the test.

The court also rejected the procedural unfairness argument regarding J.L.'s exclusion from the courtroom, deeming the trial judge's actions reasonable given J.L.'s disruptive behavior.

The Crown wardship decision was upheld, as the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in concluding J.L.'s drug abuse and anti-social behavior posed a significant risk to JLC.

Regarding access, the court found the trial judge erred in conflating "beneficial" and "meaningful" in the s.59(2.1) test of the Child and Family Services Act, but ultimately upheld the denial of access.

The court concluded that access would not be beneficial to JLC due to J.L.'s inability to control emotions and behavior, and would impair JLC's future adoption opportunities.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a custody and child support order dated June 26, 2009, claiming he was never served with the original application and seeking to terminate his support obligation and obtain joint custody.

The court found the father was properly served based on the affidavit of the process server and rejected his claim of lack of notice.

The court varied the order, fixing arrears at $39,105.00 and establishing ongoing child support at $540.00 per month based on imputed income of $59,431, after finding the father's income claims were not credible and drawing adverse inferences for years where he failed to provide documentation.

The appellant appealed from a Superior Court order dismissing his appeal of a contempt finding by the Ontario Court of Justice.

The contempt was based on the appellant's failure to comply with an access order granting the respondent mother access to the children on two consecutive occasions.

The Court of Appeal upheld the contempt finding and the $10,000 costs award, but set aside a provision requiring the appellant to cooperate with counselling involving the respondent's partner, who was subject to a 500-metre restraining order.

The Court found it was an error of law to order counselling involving the restrained party while maintaining the restraining order.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to make two children crown wards with access to the respondents in the society's discretion.

The respondents, the mother and maternal grandmother, opposed the motion and sought the return of the children to their care.

The court heard oral evidence from the mother and maternal grandmother pursuant to subrule 16(6.2) of the Family Law Rules.

The court found that the children had been in need of protection due to neglect, and that the respondents had demonstrated no meaningful insight into the protection concerns or the children's needs.

The court made final orders making both children crown wards, with access to the respondents in the society's discretion and in consideration of the children's wishes.

A focused hearing was scheduled to determine the access arrangements for the older child.

The applicant husband brought a motion to terminate a temporary, without-prejudice spousal support order of $5,000 per month after he was laid off from his employment.

He also argued that the respondent wife was intentionally unemployed.

The court dismissed the motion as premature, finding that the applicant was still receiving severance pay equivalent to his previous income, and the respondent was awaiting arbitration for her dismissal grievance.

The court declined to impute income to the respondent and held that the existing support amount remained appropriate based on the parties' current actual incomes.

This decision addresses multiple interim motions in a family law dispute concerning child support, spousal support, section 7 expenses, retroactive support, and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court imputed incomes for both parties, ordered child and interim spousal support, dismissed the wife's claims for educational expenses, and ordered the sale of the matrimonial home.

The matter was scheduled for an expedited trial.

This is a child protection case under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act involving three children (F.D., V.D., and D.D.) who were apprehended by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto in January 2014 after exposure to domestic violence between their parents.

The mother sought return of the children to her care, either with or without a supervision order.

The father initially supported the mother's plan but abandoned it at trial.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer supported Crown wardship for two of the three children with access to their mother and mandatory sibling access.

After a 10-day trial, the court found that the children should be made Crown wards without parental access for the purpose of adoption, while maintaining regular sibling access.

The court found the mother lacked credibility, had not addressed the society's protection concerns, and would be unable to meet the children's significant needs.

The father's access was terminated due to his emotionally abusive and threatening conduct toward the children and society staff.

The father brought a motion to change a 1998 child support order, seeking to terminate support entirely as all three children were allegedly independent adults.

The mother responded by seeking dismissal of the father's motion and requesting retroactive adjustments to the table amount of child support based on the father's increased income, as well as retroactive contributions to section 7 special expenses (braces, dental care, and post-secondary tuition).

The court found that the father engaged in blameworthy conduct by consistently failing to pay support as ordered, failing to disclose income increases, and refusing to contribute to special expenses despite having the means to do so.

The court determined that two of the three children remained eligible for support during certain periods and ordered retroactive adjustments to the table amount and contributions to section 7 expenses.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion within a status review application seeking to place two children (ages 9 and 7) in the temporary care and custody of their maternal grandfather in the Cayman Islands, subject to supervision.

The father opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion seeking placement of the children with himself and his partner.

The court granted the society's motion, finding that the children had been in foster care for nearly two years and that the father had not met his onus of establishing that the best interests of the children required a change in their care.

The maternal grandfather had demonstrated strong parenting skills with the two younger siblings and had a positive home study.

The court ordered placement with the maternal grandfather effective August 29, 2015, with telephone and Skype access to the father, his partner, and the paternal grandmother.

A motion was brought by S.T., the fiancée of the father of two children in child protection proceedings, seeking to be added as a party to the case and to have supervised access to the children.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto sought a society wardship order.

The court denied the motion to add S.T. as a party but granted supervised access to the children at the discretion of the Society.

The court found that S.T. was not a statutory party under the Child and Family Services Act and had not met the test under the Family Law Rules for discretionary party status.

The court emphasized the high level of conflict between the parties and the need to prioritize the children's best interests and stability.

In a high-conflict family law proceeding involving custody of two children, the court addressed a request for costs arising from a motion to adjourn the scheduled trial.

The Office of the Children’s Lawyer sought an eight‑month adjournment shortly before trial due to scheduling conflicts and illness of the clinical investigator, which the father opposed.

The court ultimately granted a shorter adjournment to an earlier date than requested.

Applying rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and the objectives of costs awards, the court found the result represented divided success and noted concerns about the lack of detail provided to justify the adjournment request.

Exercising its discretion, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs of the motion.

Following a prior finding of contempt of a court order, the court addressed costs and sentencing.

The mother sought $15,033 in costs (or alternatively $10,880), while the father argued costs should not exceed $1,500 given his modest financial means.

The court applied the factors under the Family Court Rules and found the father's wilful breach of the court order constituted reprehensible conduct.

While considering the father's limited financial means and custody of the children, the court awarded partial indemnity costs of $10,000 payable at $800 per month.

For sentencing, the court rejected changing custody and access orders as punishment but ordered the father to submit to family counselling with a specified therapist, with the father bearing the cost of the first five sessions and thereafter sharing costs equally with the mother.

A child protection case involving an amended protection application by the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking a finding that a child born in 2010 is in need of protection due to parental alcohol and drug abuse.

The parents contested the application and sought placement of the child with them subject to society supervision.

The court found the child in need of protection under subsections 37(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and clause 37(2)(g) of the Child and Family Services Act based on evidence of chronic alcohol abuse by both parents, their lack of insight into the severity of their substance use, and the resulting risks of physical and emotional harm to the child.

The court made the child a crown ward without access for the purpose of adoption, finding that despite positive aspects of the parents' plan and their love for the child, the unaddressed alcohol abuse and inadequate safety plan posed unacceptable risks to the child's welfare and permanency needs.

This is a ruling on the admissibility of child statements made to police officers in a child protection proceeding.

The respondent mother sought to exclude statements made by two children (ages 14 and 12) to police, arguing that the necessity test should be applied to state of mind exceptions and that many statements did not qualify under that exception.

The court ruled that while the principled exception of necessity and reliability applies to categorical hearsay exceptions, this was not a rare case warranting application of the necessity requirement to state of mind statements.

The court admitted certain statements that clearly reflected the children's emotional and mental state at the time they were made, while excluding statements that were too intertwined with causation or allegations of parental conduct.

The court also excluded a police interview transcript sought to be admitted for the truth of its contents, finding it insufficiently reliable without cross-examination given the high stakes of the proceeding.

A child protection agency sought to introduce expert psychiatric evidence regarding the impact of parental substance abuse on child parenting capacity.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine the admissibility of the expert evidence.

The respondent parents opposed the evidence on grounds of relevance, necessity, expert qualification, procedural non-compliance, and prejudicial effect.

The court excluded the evidence, finding it lacked relevance and necessity, the expert was not properly qualified in the specific area of substance abuse and parenting, and the probative value was substantially outweighed by prejudicial effect, particularly given inadequate notice and the risk of case delay contrary to the child's best interests.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that two young children were in need of protection and should be made Crown wards without access for purposes of adoption.

The respondent father opposed the motion, arguing there were genuine issues for trial and that he had undergone rehabilitation.

The court found that the Society had established a prima facie case based on evidence of the father's extensive criminal history including violent offences, domestic violence against the mother, substance abuse, mental health issues, non-compliance with court orders, and the children's special needs.

The court granted the motion and made the children Crown wards without access.

Following dismissal of a child protection appeal, the successful respondent sought a full recovery costs award.

The court considered Family Law Rule 24, which removes the usual presumption that a successful party receives costs in child protection matters.

Applying discretion under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and by analogy to Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court evaluated factors including the result, settlement offers, importance of the issues, conduct of the parties, and policy considerations related to the statutory mandate of children’s aid societies.

Although the respondent had succeeded and had made a written settlement offer, the court found the society acted reasonably in pursuing the appeal given the seriousness of the allegations and prior judicial comments that the appeal raised serious issues.

In light of the policy that child protection authorities should not be discouraged from pursuing their statutory mandate, the court declined to award costs.

Following a family law motion relating largely to support and financial disclosure, the applicant sought full indemnity costs of $14,774.19 and requested that a substantial portion be enforceable through the Family Responsibility Office.

The court found the applicant had been largely successful and that the respondent had failed to provide disclosure and comply with a prior consent order.

Although the respondent argued that no settlement offer had been made, that some disclosure had been provided voluntarily, and that the applicant was not entirely successful, the court held that the absence of an offer did not preclude full indemnity costs.

The court also questioned the necessity of two counsel and considered the tax implications of support-related costs under Rule 24.

Costs were fixed at $7,500 plus HST and disbursements.