L. Madsen

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible for various offences, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that maintained his conditional discharge with reduced reporting requirements.

He argued that he no longer posed a significant threat to public safety and should be granted an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board reasonably relied on expert psychiatric evidence indicating that the appellant required a longer transition period in independent living to ensure medication compliance and mental stability.

The appellant and respondent, adult siblings, were named co-estate trustees of their father's estate.

Disagreements arose over the payment of estate debts, leading to a breakdown in the administration of the estate.

The application judge removed the appellant as estate trustee, finding she had obstructed the estate's administration and preferred her own interests, while dismissing the application to remove the respondent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's discretionary decision and concluding that the appellant's arguments regarding the law of abatement were an ex post facto rationalization for her conduct.

The appellant, an investment advisor, received a recruitment bonus structured as a loan to be forgiven annually if revenue targets were met.

After the employer failed to credit bonuses for two years, the parties signed an Amended Note extending the repayment period and acknowledging the unpaid bonuses.

Following his termination, the respondent sued to enforce the Amended Note.

The appellant argued the Amended Note lacked fresh consideration.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the Amended Note was supported by valid consideration, including clarification of the parties' relationship, tax deferral benefits, and an extended interest-free period.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondents purchased a motel and gas station from the appellants.

The trial judge found the appellants fraudulently misrepresented the condition of the underground fuel tank system and breached the Agreement of Purchase and Sale by failing to provide a required safety compliance report.

The trial judge awarded damages based on the cost to replace the tank system.

On appeal, the appellants argued the trial judge erred by not granting an adjournment due to late disclosure of a Pierringer agreement, misapprehending evidence about compliance alternatives, and using the wrong measure of damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellants never requested an adjournment or stay at trial, and the trial judge made no palpable and overriding errors in her assessment of damages or contractual interpretation.

The moving party father brought a motion to change a 2016 final order, seeking changes to the residential schedule, child support, and a dispute resolution mechanism, as well as compensation for a delayed pension transfer.

The responding party mother sought sole decision-making authority and retroactive child support.

The court found that the high-conflict dynamic, largely driven by the father, warranted granting the mother sole decision-making authority over major parenting issues.

The court also imputed income to the father due to intentional underemployment and ordered him to pay $7,609 in retroactive child support.

Ongoing child support was set off under section 9 of the Guidelines, resulting in the mother paying $175 per month.

The father's claim for compensation regarding the pension transfer was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion seeking further financial disclosure from the respondent, specifically bank statements and cancelled cheques, in the context of a motion to change child support.

The applicant argued the disclosure was necessary to ascertain the respondent's true income, noting discrepancies between his hourly rate and reported income.

The court dismissed the motion for bank statements, finding the request disproportionate and akin to a fishing expedition, as the respondent was a unionized T4 employee with reasonable explanations for income fluctuations.

However, the court ordered the respondent to produce a more detailed employment letter.

The applicant father and paternal grandmother sought parenting time and grandparent contact with a six-year-old child.

The respondent mother, who had sole decision-making and residency, consented to the father's parenting time but had concerns about the grandmother's highly conflictual behaviour.

The court ordered bi-weekly parenting time for the father with a third party present.

Applying the test for grandparent contact, the court deferred to the mother's decisions, granting the grandmother limited supervised contact on the terms proposed by the mother, subject to the mother's sole discretion to suspend contact.

The father was also ordered to pay ongoing and retroactive child support on consent.

The parties participated in a binding judicial dispute resolution (JDR) process to resolve outstanding parenting issues regarding their eight-year-old child.

The JDR process, a pilot program in the Kitchener Unified Family Court, allowed the parties to settle most issues on consent.

The court adjudicated the remaining narrow issues, including the financial implications of major decision-making, exchange locations, and attendance at extra-curricular activities, focusing on minimizing the child's exposure to conflict.

The Children's Aid Society sought an order for extended Society care for three Indigenous children with high needs.

The father sought their return under a supervision order, supported by the mother.

The court found that the protection concerns that led to the children's removal had not been mitigated by the parents, and the Society's efforts to provide culturally appropriate services and support were inadequate.

Despite the children's strong desire to return to their father, the court concluded that extended Society care was the only safe option.

However, recognizing the importance of the children's Indigenous identity and their meaningful relationships with their family, the court ordered robust access for both parents and the paternal grandmother.

In a child protection trial, the Children's Aid Society sought to qualify a pediatrician as a participant expert.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer and the parents opposed the qualification, arguing the pediatrician was engaged for litigation and his methodology was flawed.

The court applied the White Burgess framework and Rule 20.2 of the Family Law Rules, concluding the pediatrician could testify as a participant expert because his opinions were formed during his involvement as a treating pediatrician, not for litigation.

The court circumscribed the scope of his permissible evidence to his observations, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of the children.

The Children's Aid Society sought a finding that three First Nations children were in need of protection and an order placing them in the custody of their maternal aunt in Alberta.

The father sought the return of the children to his care or placement with his family under a supervision order.

The court found the children in need of protection due to the father's ongoing housing instability, mental health challenges, and substance use issues.

Applying the augmented best interests test under both provincial and federal legislation, the court concluded that placement with the maternal aunt was the least disruptive alternative that would protect the children and foster their cultural identity.

The court granted custody to the maternal aunt and ordered specified access for the father.

The applicant father brought a motion to change an interim consent order to substantially expand his parenting time and add a police enforcement clause.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion seeking minor adjustments and payment of outstanding childcare costs.

The court found no material change in circumstances since the interim order was made, noting that the conflict, lateness, and police involvement existed prior to the consent order.

The court emphasized that interim orders should only be varied in compelling or exceptional circumstances.

Both the father's motion to change parenting time and the mother's cross-motion were dismissed, with financial issues adjourned to trial.

The applicant brought a motion to incorporate and enforce the terms of interim and final family arbitration awards.

The respondent, who was self-represented, requested an adjournment which was denied.

The court granted the motion, incorporating the arbitration awards into a court order and directing the respondent to comply within ten days.

The court also dispensed with the respondent's consent for the release of funds held in an Australian bank and ordered the respondent to provide disclosure regarding the sale of the former matrimonial home.

The applicant brought an unopposed motion to enforce a final order for lump sum spousal support and equalization against the respondent and his wholly-owned corporation.

The court dismissed the request to transfer funds from the respondent's locked-in retirement account (LIRA) because the LIRA was not in pay.

However, the court pierced the corporate veil, allowing the order to be enforced against the respondent's corporation, as the respondent had arranged for his employment income to be paid to the corporation to avoid his family law obligations.

The court also ordered that the lump sum support be enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

The applicant father brought a motion to vary a temporary parenting order to grant him equal parenting time, relying primarily on the 11-year-old child's views and preferences as reported by the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL).

The respondent mother opposed the motion, alleging the child was fearful of the father and that the OCL did not accurately capture the child's true views.

The court dismissed the motion, finding insufficient evidence to justify changing a three-year status quo pending trial, noting the lack of a full OCL assessment report and the need for cross-examination on highly contested evidence.

The father brought a motion to enforce a Nigerian custody order and seek the return of the parties' two children to Nigeria after the mother unilaterally moved them to Ontario.

The mother brought a cross-motion for temporary custody, arguing the children would face serious harm if returned due to country conditions and alleged past domestic violence.

The court recognized the Nigerian order under s. 41 of the Children's Law Reform Act, found the children were wrongfully removed, and concluded the mother failed to establish a risk of serious harm under s. 23.

The father's motion was granted and the children were ordered returned to Nigeria.

The responding party mother brought an urgent motion during the COVID-19 court suspension seeking the return of the parties' child, a police enforcement order, and an order preventing the moving party father from taking the child to his cottage.

The dispute arose over the parenting schedule during school closures.

The triage judge found the matter was not urgent because it had become moot; the father agreed in his responding materials to return the child and revert to the existing court-ordered schedule.

The court declined to award costs to the father, noting he only disclosed his cottage address after the motion was brought and the motion was necessary to secure his compliance with the existing order.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion for the resumption of his regular parenting time after the applicant mother suspended it due to COVID-19 concerns.

The court applied the principles from Ribeiro v. Wright and found the matter to be urgent, as the mother had withheld parenting time in contravention of a final court order.

The court directed a timetable for the exchange of materials and scheduled a teleconference hearing for the motion.

The respondent father brought a motion to change seeking to set aside a 2012 final order for spousal and child support that was obtained by the applicant mother on an uncontested basis.

The father argued the mother failed to make full and frank disclosure when she proceeded without notice.

The court found that while the mother's disclosure was lacking in some respects, the omissions were not material.

Applying rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules, the court dismissed the request to set aside the order due to the father's significant and unexplained delay in bringing the motion, the lack of an arguable defence, and the prejudice that setting aside the order would cause to the mother.

The parties, parents of a 10-year-old child, resolved custody and primary residence at the start of a three-day trial.

The remaining issues were the father's access schedule, sharing of special expenses, and retroactive child support.

The court granted the father's request for expanded access, including alternate weekends and holiday time, finding it in the child's best interests.

The court also ordered the father to pay retroactive child support from December 2016 based on the Child Support Guidelines, rejecting his argument that a prior informal agreement should govern.

Special expenses for dance and braces were ordered to be shared equally.