Logan A. Rathbone

The applicant Director sought a restraining order against the respondents, who claimed to be the legal guardians of a Métis child by virtue of an Aboriginal custom adoption.

The child was subject to a continuing custody order in British Columbia and had been placed in Ontario.

The respondents had attempted to apprehend the child from her school in Ontario.

The court declined to decide the validity of the custom adoption, recognizing the British Columbia custody order instead.

Finding that the Director had reasonable grounds to fear for the child's safety, the court granted the restraining order.

The Director of the Family Responsibility Office sought enforcement of a support order requiring the payor to pay child support, spousal support, and section 7 educational expenses.

The payor sought to pay substantially reduced amounts, claiming inability to pay due to unemployment, bankruptcy, and tax debt.

The court rejected the payor's request for reduced support, finding that he had not demonstrated a valid reason for non-payment, had not accepted responsibility for his obligations, and had credibility issues.

The court maintained the full ongoing support obligation pending a final default hearing.

A child protection trial involving three children (AB, AM, and MM) brought by the Halton Children's Aid Society.

The mother (MM) and father of two of the children (DJ) were convicted of sexual crimes against the mother's oldest child (JB).

The court found all three children in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act based on risk of sexual molestation or exploitation and, for two children, parental unavailability.

AB was placed with her biological father under a supervision order; AM and MM were placed with their maternal aunt and uncle under a supervision order.

The mother was granted minimal access (one weekly phone call and one monthly letter) with no in-person access ordered at the time of judgment.

The court determined whether three children are Indian or native persons under the Child and Family Services Act.

The children's aid society argued the children were neither Indian nor native, while the mother sought a declaration that they were Indian with the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte as their band.

The court found that the children are entitled to be registered as Indians under the Indian Act through their maternal lineage, tracing entitlement through their great-great-grandfather (R.M.), great-grandmother (E.B.), grandfather (R.W.), and mother (M.M.).

The court identified the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte – Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory as the children's band.

The court heard two motions brought by respondent parents in a child protection proceeding.

The respondent mother sought a declaration that she and three youngest children are Native and/or eligible for status as Indians under the Child and Family Services Act, and requested that the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte be served and permitted to participate in proceedings.

The respondent father D.M.'s motion was dismissed as he did not appear.

The court adjourned the mother's motion to May 6, 2016, and made orders regarding service on the Band, participation at hearings, and case management to address delays caused by the parties' conduct and the voluminous materials filed.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment on a child protection application seeking a finding that two children were in need of protection and orders for their placement in the care of their respective fathers with Society supervision.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing that material facts remained in dispute requiring a trial.

The court granted the Society's motion for summary judgment, finding that the children were in need of protection from risk of emotional harm pursuant to section 37(2)(g) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The court found that the mother's inability to cope with significant life stressors, coupled with her failure to address underlying issues and seek treatment, created a real and pressing risk of emotional harm to the children.

The court ordered the children to remain in their fathers' care subject to Society supervision for seven months and structured the mother's access to ensure regular, consistent contact while protecting the children from further harm.

The applicant mother brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a final restraining order against the respondent father, prohibiting him from communicating directly or indirectly with the mother and children and from coming within 500 metres of them.

The father had engaged in physical, verbal, and psychological abuse of the mother and children during the marriage and made multiple death threats shortly after separation.

The father was charged with four counts of uttering death threats and one count of uttering threat to damage property.

The court found that the evidence established a history of abuse but dismissed the restraining order motion without prejudice, finding that the mother and children were adequately protected by the father's absence from Canada and the outstanding criminal charges that would result in his arrest upon entry.

However, the court granted a no-contact order formalizing existing restrictions on the father's communication with the mother and children.

The applicant father sought the return of two young children to Croatia under the Hague Convention, alleging they were wrongfully retained in Ontario.

The respondent mother argued the parties had formed a shared intention to relocate to North America and had become habitually resident in Ontario prior to their separation.

The court assessed credibility and considered evidence including applications for social assistance, health coverage, employment in Ontario, and plans for subsidized housing.

The court found the parties had a common intention to reside in Ontario and were habitually resident there by February 2012, rendering the Hague Convention inapplicable.

In the alternative, the court found that returning the children to Croatia would expose them to a grave risk of harm due to abuse by the father.

The accused pleaded guilty to trafficking in marijuana under 3 grams and possession for the purpose of trafficking oxycodone.

The court imposed a global sentence of 8 months incarceration followed by 12 months probation with conditions including community service and a prohibition on drug possession.

The court rejected the defence submission for a conditional sentence, finding that denunciation and general deterrence were paramount given the serious increase in oxycodone trafficking in the community.

The court considered the accused's age, lack of criminal record, guilty plea, and family support as mitigating factors, but found the profit-motivated nature of the offences and the dangerous nature of oxycodone as aggravating factors.