Lesley Taafe

In a family law costs endorsement, the party seeking costs submitted a bill of costs that lacked a detailed breakdown of time spent on specific tasks.

The court noted that much of the work done was unhelpful and unnecessary.

Furthermore, the court declined to award costs for the time of a law clerk, reiterating that such time is considered part of a lawyer's overhead and cannot be claimed separately.

The court estimated the reasonable time spent and awarded costs in the fixed amount of $4,377.06, to be paid from the proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home.

The child protection agency brought a summary judgment motion seeking Crown wardship of a young child without access.

The parents opposed the motion and sought the child’s return to their care under supervision, arguing that factual disputes required a full trial.

The court held that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, emphasizing the child’s serious prior neglect, extensive parental history of child protection involvement, missed access visits, and inability to address the child’s special needs.

Applying the best‑interests factors under the Child and Family Services Act, the court concluded that permanency planning was required and that Crown wardship was appropriate.

The court further held that the parents failed to establish that access would be meaningful and beneficial to the child or that it would not impair adoption prospects.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order for Crown wardship with access for the child.

The child had been in care for over four years following multiple apprehensions due to neglect and a physical incident involving the father's partner.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding the child's continued need for protection and the disposition of Crown wardship, relying on a parenting capacity assessment that concluded the father and his partner lacked the ability to meet the child's needs.

However, the court found a genuine issue for trial regarding the specific terms of access and ordered a focused trial on that issue.