Leonard Kim

The Crown brought a Mohan application to qualify an expert ergonomist, Steve A. MacDonald, in line of sight, visibility, and human factors, in a case where the defendant was charged under the Occupational Health and Safety Act following a workplace fatality.

The defendant opposed the application.

The court applied the two-stage Mohan/White Burgess test for expert evidence admissibility.

It found the expert's opinion unnecessary as the trier of fact could form conclusions without it, given the direct eyewitness testimony and video evidence.

Furthermore, the court determined that the expert was not properly qualified in the specific narrow area of expertise due to limited prior experience in LOS assessments and reliance on unverified and contradictory factual assumptions.

The court concluded that the risks of admitting the unreliable and unnecessary evidence outweighed its potential benefits, and therefore dismissed the application to qualify the expert witness.

The respondent mother, S.M.L., sought leave to bring a status review application for her child, Z., who had been in extended society care and with the same foster parents for over two years.

The court applied the five-part test from Catholic Children's Aid of Metro Toronto v. B.A.F., which requires the applicant to demonstrate bona fide intent, that relief cannot be obtained otherwise, unusual circumstances, that the review would accomplish the Act's purposes, and a prima facie case.

The court found that the mother failed to establish unusual circumstances (as a parent's improvement alone is not unusual) and failed to establish a prima facie case, primarily due to ongoing instability in her life and the significant disruption it would cause to the special needs child's established stability and attachment with the foster parents.

The application for leave was dismissed, prioritizing the child's best interests and permanency.

In a child protection proceeding, foster parents T.O. and M.L. brought a motion for party status concerning the child A.L., who had been in their care since early 2020.

The biological parents, A.H. and D.L., opposed the motion, arguing that the foster parents' input could be obtained through the Children's Aid Society, which took no position.

The court applied a five-factor test to determine if party status should be granted, considering the foster parents' ability to present a plan in the child's best interest, their legal interest (long-term adoption objective), the necessity of their direct evidence given the child's young age and lack of OCL involvement, potential for delay, and the child's best interests.

The motion for party status was granted, emphasizing the need for comprehensive, real-time evidence from primary caregivers.