Lawrence J. Klein

A child protection matter under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act concerning the custody placement of a 12-year-old Aboriginal child.

The Children's Aid Society sought a section 57.1 custody order placing the child with her maternal aunt and uncle in a different community to facilitate proximity to her mother and cultural connection.

The father and paternal grandmother opposed this, seeking to maintain the child's existing placement with the grandmother.

The court found that while cultural preservation is important, the child's clearly expressed wishes, continuity of care, and existing secure family relationships outweighed the cultural considerations.

The court ordered the child remain in the custody of the paternal grandmother with structured access to the mother and extended family.

A father sought an order to enroll his child in École Publique Héritage, a French First Language school, while the mother sought enrollment at Sunset Park Public School in an Early French Immersion Programme.

The parents had joint custody with a 50/50 parenting arrangement.

The court applied the best interests of the child standard under the Child's Law Reform Act and determined that enrollment at Sunset Park was in the child's best interests, considering factors including the mother's ability to participate in the child's education, the child's sibling relationship, and the continuity of after-school care.

Respondent parents sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis against the Children's Aid Society following dismissal of a child protection application.

The Society had brought proceedings alleging the child was at risk of emotional harm due to exposure to the father's alleged criminal behavior.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer's investigation ultimately supported the parents' position that the child was not in need of protection.

The court dismissed the costs claim, finding the Society had conducted a thorough investigation, remained open-minded, reassessed its position as information became available, and acted respectfully toward the parties.

The court held that costs against child protection agencies should only be awarded where the public would perceive the Society acted in a patently unfair and indefensible manner, a threshold not met in this case.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion heard on access to children in a family law matter.

The applicant father sought full recovery costs of $7,500 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The respondent mother opposed the costs claim, arguing the amounts were excessive and that she and the children would suffer hardship.

The court awarded the full costs claimed to the successful applicant father, finding that the mother had taken unreasonable positions throughout the proceedings and had been the author of her own misfortune by failing to resolve matters in the best interests of the children.

The appellant, Consbec Inc., appealed a sentencing decision arising from a guilty plea to permitting a blast that carried fly rock beyond the limits of a quarry property in violation of the Environmental Protection Act.

The trial Justice of the Peace imposed a fine and a restitution order of $10,000 to compensate for damage to a neighboring well.

The appellant challenged the qualification of the Crown's expert witness and the sufficiency of reasons for the decision.

The appeal court upheld the trial decision, finding that the expert qualification was properly exercised and that the reasons, while not extensive, were sufficient to support the conclusion that the blast caused damage to the well water quality.

The applicant father brought a motion for specific terms of access to his two children following a separation agreement that provided for joint custody with primary residence with the respondent mother in North Bay.

The respondent mother sought to restrict access, citing various personal difficulties.

The court found that the respondent had not provided adequate justification for restricting the established access arrangements and that she had functioned as a problem-maker rather than a problem-solver.

The court maintained the status quo access schedule and ordered that the matter proceed to trial on the issues of access arrangements and child support.

The court also imposed restrictions on parental conduct, including prohibitions on negative speech about the other parent and on unilateral mental health consultations with the children.

Trial decision determining custody and access arrangements for two children following separation of unmarried parents.

The applicant sought joint custody and week-about residency arrangements, while the respondent sought sole custody with limited access.

The court found that although both parents were capable of parenting, the persistent conflict and poor communication between them made a joint custody order inappropriate.

Sole custody was awarded to the mother with specified access to the father, including every other weekend, weeknight visits, and summer access.

Child support was ordered at $698 per month with arrears calculated from the first day of trial.

The Children's Aid Society brought a child protection application alleging that two children were at risk due to a pattern of neglect and physical assault by their father.

The father subsequently brought a motion for unsupervised access to the children.

The court found that while the children have a fundamental right to maintain contact with their non-custodial parent, the allegations raised sufficient safety concerns to warrant supervised access.

The court ordered supervised access at the paternal grandparents' home, supervised by the paternal grandmother, with specific frequency and conditions, including restrictions on alcohol and drug consumption within 24 hours of visits.

This is a costs decision following a final order on custody and access issues in a family law matter.

The respondent sought costs of $5,000 plus disbursements and HST totalling $6,001.74 based on obtaining a final order substantially in accord with a section 112 assessment.

The applicant argued costs should be limited to the preparation and argument of the summary judgment motion only, in the $500 range.

The court awarded partial recovery costs of $2,400 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable at $200 per month commencing January 1, 2013, enforceable as an incident of support.

In a family law matter following separation, the court determined issues of child support and spousal support.

The parties had separated in December 2011 and entered into an informal agreement regarding support, which the court found was not a binding domestic contract.

A Consent Temporary Order for child support had been made in March 2012.

The court was required to determine the appropriate spousal support award based on the parties' respective incomes and the Spousal Support Guidelines.

The court found the respondent's 2011 income to be $80,699 and the applicant's to be $14,799, and awarded spousal support of $100 per month retroactive to April 2, 2012.

A paternal grandmother sought access to her two grandchildren following a breakdown in her relationship with the children's parents.

The grandmother had previously provided regular child care and logistical support but was denied all contact with the children after February 2011 when she withdrew her assistance.

The court dismissed the grandmother's motion for temporary access, finding that although the parents acted somewhat arbitrarily in severing contact, the relationship bonds had dissipated over the two-year period of separation and the ongoing acrimony between the parties posed too great a risk to the children's wellbeing to justify court-ordered access.

The applicant father sought an interim order to prevent the respondent mother from relocating with the two children from Mattawa to Limoges, Ontario (near Ottawa), and to grant him temporary custody pending trial.

The respondent sought permission to move, citing financial necessity and better employment prospects.

The court found that while the respondent is the de facto custodial parent, there was insufficient evidence to establish a strong probability of success at trial to justify granting a temporary relocation order.

The court maintained the status quo by prohibiting the move pending the full hearing on November 15, 2012, and ordered the parties to file financial statements for determination of temporary child support.

The applicant mother sought permission to relocate with her two children from Ontario to Thompson, Manitoba to reside with her common-law partner.

The respondent father opposed the relocation and sought a change in custody.

The court considered the factors established in Gordon v. Goertz and found that the mother's relocation was in the best interests of the children.

The court granted the mother permission to relocate and maintained her custody, while establishing an access schedule for the father consisting of three annual lengthy visits and regular video communication.

The applicant father sought a temporary order for child support and spousal support from the respondent mother.

The parties had cohabited since 2001 and had two children but never married.

They separated in April 2012 and shared custody on a week-about basis.

The applicant claimed he was unable to work due to medical issues and had no income.

The respondent, a registered nurse earning $83,000 annually, opposed the application and argued the applicant was intentionally underemployed.

The court imputed income to the applicant based on his capacity to earn as a skilled tradesperson and ordered the respondent to pay child support using the set-off method.

No spousal support was awarded.

In a high-conflict family law matter, the respondent mother sought to suspend the applicant father's access to two young children based on allegations of physical assault and threats, citing criminal charges pending against him.

The applicant father sought to change custody in his favour.

The court dismissed both motions, finding the evidence inconclusive and conflicting.

The court reinstated the consent final order from July 2011 with a police assistance clause, holding that access should only be suspended in extreme circumstances and that the presumption of regular access by a non-custodial parent is in the best interests of children.

The court also imposed restrictions on future motions without leave.