Lester Ramirez Cuellar

The applicant father sought to change a temporary, without prejudice, consent parenting order to a graduated 2-2-3 schedule for the child (TRL).

The respondent mother opposed the motion, arguing the proposed schedule would be too disruptive given the child's young age and existing routine.

The court, noting the "without prejudice" nature of the prior order, determined that a material change in circumstances was not required.

After considering the child's best interests, including her age, development, routine, and relationship with her maternal great-grandmother, the court granted a more gradual increase in the father's parenting time, ordering one midweek overnight on alternating Tuesdays and Thursdays, in addition to the existing alternate weekend schedule.

In this child protection matter under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act, the court addressed the Society's duty to provide services and support family reunification, particularly regarding the father's lack of suitable housing.

Following an initial summary judgment motion where the court found the children in need of protection but directed a trial on disposition, the court held multiple hearings to address interim housing and access arrangements pending trial.

The court required the Society to provide detailed assistance with housing and directed evidence regarding available government benefits.

The father ultimately received transition child tax benefits from Ontario Works, which resolved his request for direct rent payment from the Society.

The court approved expanded access arrangements and permitted the parties to work cooperatively on housing matters pending trial.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a summary judgment motion seeking a finding that two children were in need of protection and an order making them crown wards with access in the Society's discretion.

The respondent father opposed the motion and filed responding materials.

The court found that while the statutory findings under section 37(2)(i) of the Child and Family Services Act (based on the mother's abandonment) were supported by the evidence, the Society failed to meet its onus on the summary judgment motion regarding disposition.

The court dismissed the disposition aspect of the motion and directed a trial, finding that genuine issues requiring trial existed concerning the Society's duty to provide services and support family reunification, the viability of the father's plan, and whether less disruptive alternatives to crown wardship were available.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an order that found records from marriage counselling sessions privileged and not disclosable in matrimonial litigation.

The court applied the strict two-part test for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4)(b), finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision and no matters of general importance beyond the immediate parties.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

This endorsement addresses costs following an appeal hearing.

The court found that the respondent (husband) improperly proceeded with a Rule 14B motion, and the applicant (wife) unreasonably appealed a prior order.

Despite both parties seeking costs, the court determined that each party was responsible for their own legal expenses due to their respective unreasonable procedural actions that led to the appeal and its dismissal.

The appellant wife appealed a temporary order from the Ontario Court of Justice that refused to make a final order based on the parties' consent.

The lower court judge had declined to sign the final order due to serious allegations by the respondent husband of duress and fraudulent misrepresentation in obtaining the consent, and the need for the wife to file responding material.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower court's decision not to sign the final order and its directions for the matter to proceed in the Ontario Court of Justice to determine the consent's validity.

The court also upheld the admission of fresh evidence (email threads) on appeal, applying the R. v. Palmer test, finding it relevant to the service issue.