Linda Choi

The Ontario Court of Justice rendered a costs endorsement following motions for temporary parenting and support orders.

The respondent mother, who was largely successful on the underlying motions, sought $13,000 in costs.

The applicant father opposed the amount and requested installment payments.

The court, applying principles of reasonableness and proportionality, found the mother to be the successful party.

It considered the father's unreasonable conduct, including unjustifiably overholding children, attempting to exclude the mother from their lives, failing to pay child support, and breaching a court order.

Despite both parties failing to make offers to settle, the court awarded the mother $10,000 in costs, payable in monthly installments of $300.

The parties brought cross-motions for temporary parenting orders.

The father sought primary residence or equal parenting time, while the mother sought primary residence, sole decision-making responsibility, supervised parenting time for the father, and a restraining order.

The court found the father engaged in family violence, including financial abuse and manipulative behavior, and had unilaterally withheld the children.

The court granted the mother's requests for primary residence, sole decision-making, and a temporary restraining order, ordering the father's parenting time to be professionally supervised and requiring him to deposit all passports.

This is a Status Review Application under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act involving three children with special needs who have been in the care of the Children's Aid Society of Toronto.

The court found that all three children remain at risk of physical harm due to the father's serious and long-standing alcohol addiction, his inability to maintain sobriety, his lack of honesty and cooperation with the society and community supports, and allegations of inappropriate physical discipline.

The court ordered that one child be placed in extended care of the society and the other two children be placed in the custody of their paternal aunt, with access arrangements to be supervised.

Following convictions for sexual assault and sexual assault causing bodily harm against young children, the Crown brought an application to designate the offender a dangerous offender under s. 753 of the Criminal Code.

The court considered expert psychiatric evidence, historical youth offences, and the offender’s conduct in grooming and repeatedly abusing two victims.

Although aspects of the psychiatric risk assessment were treated with caution due to reliance on unproven allegations, the court found overwhelming evidence of entrenched pedophilia, denial of responsibility, and refusal to engage in treatment.

These factors demonstrated a high likelihood of future sexual recidivism and severe psychological harm to potential victims.

The court concluded that neither a determinate sentence nor long‑term offender supervision would adequately protect the public and imposed an indeterminate sentence.

Following convictions for sexual assault and sexual assault causing bodily harm against two young victims, the Crown initiated a dangerous offender application.

Prior to the hearing, the court ruled on the admissibility of documentary records from multiple agencies relating to the accused’s youth criminal history, probation supervision, psychiatric treatment, and counselling.

The court held that hearsay evidence is admissible at sentencing proceedings, including dangerous offender hearings, provided it is credible and trustworthy and subject to the Crown’s burden to prove disputed aggravating facts beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found the records were prepared contemporaneously by professionals performing public duties and were therefore sufficiently reliable.

The documents were admitted, with certain limitations on their use and with the possibility that their authors could be called for cross-examination if accuracy were seriously challenged.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against two young boys.

The Crown alleged the accused sexually assaulted the boys during the summer and fall of 2009 while spending time with their family.

The accused denied the allegations, claiming a close father-son bond with one boy and denying any inappropriate contact.

The court found the boys' evidence credible and reliable, supported by circumstantial evidence including anal injuries and behavioral changes.

The court also admitted the boys' accounts as similar fact evidence, finding they mutually corroborated each other.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault causing bodily harm against one boy and sexual assault simpliciter against the other.