E.

The Applicant grandmother sought a contact order with her grandson, Mason, following the tragic deaths of his father and paternal uncle by suicide.

The Respondent mother, though noted in default, had engaged with the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL), which produced a Voice of the Child (VOC) report.

The VOC indicated Mason did not have a close relationship with his grandmother and did not express a desire for contact.

Applying the "best interests of the child" principle under the Children's Law Reform Act and the principle of parental autonomy from Chapman v. Chapman, the court found the Applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that the mother's decision regarding contact should be respected.

The court noted the lack of detailed evidence regarding the grandmother's pre-existing relationship with Mason and the absence of information about the relationship between the parties.

Consequently, the application for a contact order was dismissed.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and assault against his father, assault with a weapon against his sister, and two counts of failure to comply with probation orders.

The offences arose from a violent incident in the family home in the early morning hours of October 17, 2019.

The Crown called two witnesses—the father and sister—whose testimony was corroborated by security footage, a 911 recording, and photographs of injuries.

The accused did not testify or call evidence.

The court found the accused guilty of assault and assault with a weapon but rejected the aggravated assault charge, finding instead the lesser included offence of assault causing bodily harm.

The court acquitted on the failure to comply charges based on the de minimus principle.

A motion brought by the respondent father to reinstate unsupervised access to two younger subject children following the suspension of such access by the child protection agency.

The court determined that while the agency had authority under the discretionary terms of the prior order to suspend access without a further court order, it would have been preferable for the agency to bring a motion.

The court found serious concerns regarding the adequacy of the father's supervision of the children, including evidence that the oldest child was caring for younger siblings while the father remained in his locked room, insufficient food in the home, and the apprehension of another child in the father's care.

The father failed to comply with multiple terms of the court order and provided no evidence of a plan to address the supervision concerns.

The motion for unsupervised access was dismissed.

The plaintiffs, shareholders in Domenic Cosentino and Co. Limited (DCCL), brought a motion seeking an injunction to halt the sale of the company's sole asset, the Wolfedale Road property, an interim preservation order, or a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL), alleging oppressive conduct by the controlling shareholders, Mary and Tony Cosentino.

The plaintiffs claimed Mary and Tony had mismanaged company finances, depleted property equity through undisclosed mortgages, and acted without transparency regarding the property sale and their personal financial benefits.

The court found that Mary and Tony's actions were oppressive, establishing a serious issue to be tried and irreparable harm if the sale proceeded without safeguards.

However, the court denied the injunction, preservation order, and CPL, finding that the balance of convenience favored allowing the sale to proceed due to the company's dire financial state and mortgage default.

Instead, the court ordered that the net proceeds of the sale be paid into court, and Tony's disputed commission be held pending trial.

This is a costs ruling following the dismissal of recusal motions brought by the Moving Parties (Sam Cosentino, Concetta Cosentino, and Cesare Cosentino).

The court rejected the Moving Parties' request to refer costs to an assessment officer, affirming that judges typically fix costs to avoid delay.

It found that the Moving Parties should have reasonably anticipated the responding defendants' participation and associated legal costs.

While the recusal motion was ill-conceived and involved a substantial record, the court determined that the Moving Parties' conduct was not egregious enough to warrant substantial indemnity costs.

The court adjusted some cost claims for duplication of counsel and excluded time spent on non-party witnesses, ultimately awarding partial indemnity costs to the successful defendants.

The moving parties (Sam, Concetta, and Cesare Cosentino) sought the recusal of the case management judge, Daley RSJ, in seven related high-conflict family litigation actions, alleging bias or a reasonable apprehension of bias.

They also sought a transfer of the actions from Brampton to Toronto.

The court dismissed both the recusal motions and the transfer request, finding no cogent evidence to overcome the strong presumption of judicial impartiality.

The judge emphasized the higher threshold for recusal in a case management context, where close interaction and familiarity with the case are expected.

The plaintiff moved to set aside a registrar's order dismissing the action for delay.

The court applied the four-part test from Reid v. Dow Corning Corp. and found that the plaintiff failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the litigation delay, failed to establish inadvertence in missing the deadline, failed to bring the motion promptly, and failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice to the defendants.

The motion was dismissed.