Adam Lake

The applicants sought a review of the respondent children's aid society's decision to refuse their application to adopt a two-year-old child who had been in their foster care.

The society had removed the child and refused the adoption after the child suffered an unexplained elbow fracture while in the applicants' care, relying on the 'unexplained injury principle'.

The Child and Family Services Review Board rescinded the society's decision, finding that the unexplained injury principle was distinguishable because the injury was less severe than in precedent cases, there was evidence of potential third-party intervention by the child's siblings, and the society had no other concerns with the applicants' care.

The Board concluded it was in the child's best interests to proceed with the adoption application given the strong sibling bonds and the applicants' ability to meet the child's needs.

In matrimonial proceedings, the court held a focused hearing to determine the beneficial ownership of a property gratuitously transferred by the respondent to himself and his adult son as joint tenants.

The applicant argued for a resulting trust, while the respondent contended it was a gift.

The court found that the respondent failed to provide clear, convincing, and cogent evidence to rebut the presumption of resulting trust, concluding that the respondent remained the beneficial owner of his son's one-half interest in the property.

The applicant brought an application for spousal support and equalization.

The respondent was noted in default for failing to participate and file materials.

At the uncontested trial, the court found the respondent had no standing to participate as he had not moved to set aside the default order and had unpaid costs awards.

The court ordered final spousal support of $9,127 per month based on the high end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, and set arrears at $360,000.

To partially satisfy the arrears, the court ordered the respondent's interest in the jointly owned matrimonial home to be transferred to the applicant.

The court also ordered the equal division of the respondent's pensions and awarded costs of $15,000 to the applicant.

The respondent sought a temporary parenting time order accommodating his two-week on/two-week off work schedule and an order for child support.

The applicant opposed, citing her primary caregiver role, the "7-day rule" for young children, and disagreements over healthcare.

The court dismissed the applicant's objections, finding them insufficient.

The court granted the respondent's request for parenting time, with a minor adjustment for the applicant, and ordered child support as per the Guidelines.

The parties were also ordered to communicate via a specific application.

The tenants appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board, arguing they were denied procedural fairness when the Board member refused to allow them to present evidence or cross-examine witnesses regarding the landlord's issuance of a trespass notice to their personal support worker.

The Divisional Court found that the member committed a fundamental error by failing to provide a reasonable opportunity for the tenants to be heard.

The matter was remitted to a different member of the Board for a new hearing on the issues of threats, the impact of the trespass notice, and appropriate remedies.

The paternal grandmother brought a motion to be added as a party to a child protection proceeding.

She had been granted temporary care and custody of her two grandchildren under a previous without-prejudice order.

The society opposed the motion, arguing she was not a statutory parent and that adding her would cause undue delay.

The court found that the grandmother qualified as a statutory parent under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act because she had lawful custody of the children pursuant to the temporary order.

Alternatively, the court held she should be added as a party under the Family Law Rules, as her participation was necessary to determine the issues and was in the best interests of the children.

The motion was granted.