Margaret A. McSorley

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection and an order for extended society care with no access.

The mother had a history of substance abuse and criminal activity, and failed to comply with previous court orders or address the protection concerns.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, determined the child was in need of protection, and ordered extended society care.

The court also terminated the mother's access, finding it was not beneficial and meaningful to the child.

The applicant brought a motion to reopen the evidence of a July 2016 trial regarding spousal support, arguing that new evidence about the respondent's housing, increased income, and his own decreased income justified changing the support order.

The court applied the two-part test for admitting fresh evidence before a judgment is entered.

The court found that the new evidence either could have been discovered with reasonable diligence or would not have changed the outcome of the trial.

The motion was dismissed, and the original spousal support order was directed to be issued and enforced.

The applicant father and respondent mother separated shortly after the birth of their child.

The father sought joint custody and equal parenting time, while the mother sought sole custody.

The court found the parents were engaged in a high-conflict relationship and were unable to communicate or cooperate, making joint custody impossible.

However, the court also found that granting sole custody to the mother would likely lead to further conflict and marginalize the father.

The court ordered a parallel parenting arrangement with a week-about schedule, dividing decision-making responsibilities.

The court also imputed income of $150,000 to the father for child support purposes, finding he was intentionally under-employed, and declined to order the mother to pay child support despite the shared custody arrangement due to the significant income disparity.

The father's claims for occupation rent, vehicle lease reimbursement, and property equalization were dismissed.

The applicant and respondent separated after a 21-year common-law relationship.

The applicant sought a beneficial interest in several properties, spousal support, and priority over CRA liens, while the respondent sought retroactive child support.

The court found the parties were engaged in a joint family venture and awarded the applicant a 50% interest in two properties and a 33% interest in a third property purchased post-separation using joint funds.

The respondent's claim for retroactive child support was dismissed as the children were independent adults when the claim was made.

The court awarded the applicant retroactive and ongoing periodic spousal support, imputing income to both parties.

Finally, the court held that the applicant's constructive trust interest in the properties took priority over the CRA's subsequently registered tax liens.

The applicant mother sought sole custody, child support, and equalization of net family property following the parties' separation.

The respondent father sought equal parenting time.

The court found that the mother had been the primary caregiver and was better attuned to the child's needs, while the father's rigid approach to parenting time caused unnecessary conflict.

The court granted sole custody to the mother with a specified access schedule for the father, ordered the father to pay ongoing child support and arrears, and calculated the equalization payment owed by the mother to the father.

The applicant mother sought joint custody and primary residence of the child, Cylus, along with child support and s.7 expenses.

The respondent father also sought joint custody with primary residence, child support, and s.7 expenses.

The court, applying the "best interests of the child" principle under the Children's Law Reform Act, determined that the child's primary residence should be with the father, considering the stability he provided and the mother's military career requiring frequent moves.

The court also addressed child support and s.7 expenses, ordering the mother to pay support and share expenses, with adjustments for past travel costs.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment in status review proceedings concerning a child, T.E., seeking a custody order for the child's godfather and his wife (J.T. and S.T.) and reasonable access for the mother (S.E.) subject to the child's wishes.

The mother opposed the specific access terms and sought joint custody.

The court granted the summary judgment motion, finding no genuine issues for trial regarding custody or access.

Custody was awarded to J.T. and S.T., and the mother was granted reasonable access subject to the child's wishes, with the caregivers encouraged to facilitate contact.

The decision emphasized the child's best interests, his clear wishes, and the need for finality and permanency.

The respondent, Christopher MacArthur, brought a motion to add the applicant Jennifer Breen's fiancé, Adam Brock, as a party to ongoing 'motion to change' proceedings, which included a claim for a restraining order against Mr. Brock.

The court considered whether adding Mr. Brock was necessary to decide all issues in the case, applying Rule 7(5) and Rule 14(3) of the Family Law Rules.

The court found that Mr. Brock's involvement was not necessary for the main proceedings concerning custody and access, noting that he would automatically be a party for the purposes of the interim restraining order motion.

The motion to add Mr. Brock as a party to the main proceedings was dismissed, with the court emphasizing that such additions should be used sparingly to avoid complicating litigation and increasing costs, which could negatively impact the children's best interests.

In a child protection proceeding, the society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking findings that the youngest child was in need of protection and that all three children be made Crown wards without access.

The court reviewed the history of domestic violence, parental instability, and repeated apprehensions, and found there was no genuine issue requiring a trial on whether the children were in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act.

However, the court determined that genuine issues remained regarding disposition, including competing plans advanced by the mother, the maternal grandmother, and the society.

Evidence suggesting changed circumstances and community support for the mother, as well as a proposed placement with the grandmother approved by Nova Scotia authorities, raised triable issues.

The court therefore granted summary judgment only on the protection finding and ordered that disposition proceed to trial.

Maternal grandparents applied for court-ordered access to their grandchildren under the Children’s Law Reform Act after the parents terminated contact following family conflict and eviction proceedings.

The court reviewed the governing principles on grandparent access, emphasizing that the best interests of the child and parental decision-making authority are paramount where parents are attentive to their children’s needs.

Although the court accepted that a prior relationship existed and found aspects of the parents’ allegations exaggerated, the evidence also demonstrated significant and ongoing hostility between the adults and an incident involving secret contact that precipitated child protection proceedings.

The court concluded that the relationship between the grandparents and the children was ordinary rather than “special” and that ordering access would likely intensify conflict and place the children in the middle of adult disputes.

The application for access was dismissed, though the grandparents were permitted to send cards and gifts on special occasions.

The respondent mother brought two motions and a notice of constitutional question challenging the Children's Aid Society's investigation and cancellation of an access visit.

The mother alleged violations of her Charter rights under sections 7, 8, and 10.

She sought the return of her three children to her care, withdrawal of the protection application, and costs.

The court found no Charter violations.

The mother's section 7 rights (life, liberty, and security of person) were not infringed by the society's investigation.

The mother's section 8 rights (unreasonable search and seizure) were not violated; even if they were, the search was justified under the Oakes test and any remedy would be exclusion of evidence, not return of the children.

The mother's section 10 rights (arrest or detention) were inapplicable as she was neither arrested nor detained.

The court also dismissed the contempt motion, finding the access order gave the society discretion to cancel visits.

All motions and constitutional questions were dismissed.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a separation agreement dated May 8, 2008, seeking increased child support and contribution from the respondent father toward section 7 post-secondary education expenses for three adult children.

The respondent father's employment was terminated in 2012, and he subsequently obtained new employment at a lower income.

The court found a material change in circumstances and determined the father's income for support purposes.

The court ordered the father to pay child support for the youngest child and to contribute 67% of post-secondary education expenses for two of the children, with retroactive arrears to be paid after ongoing support obligations ceased.

Spousal support was adjusted based on the father's current income, with provisions for further adjustment upon termination of child support obligations.

The parties settled a motion to change child support and arrears, leaving the issue of costs to the court.

The applicant mother sought full indemnity costs, alleging the respondent father acted in bad faith by failing to disclose income replacement benefits and delaying the proceedings.

The court found the father's conduct was unreasonable but did not rise to the level of bad faith.

The mother was awarded partial indemnity costs of $6,470.40, reflecting her divided success on the issues of ongoing support and arrears.

The applicant mother sought sole custody of the child with no access to the father and a restraining order.

The respondent father sought joint/shared custody, restrictions on the child's movement, and a police enforcement clause.

The court found that the parents had no history of cooperative parenting or effective communication.

The mother was awarded sole custody.

The father was granted regular unsupervised access on alternate weekends and specified holiday periods, with access exchanges to occur at a supervised facility.

The father was ordered to pay child support based on an imputed income of $50,000 per annum and to contribute to daycare and other section 7 expenses.

Motion for summary judgment brought by the Children's Aid Society of Oxford County in a child protection application.

The society sought confirmation of statutory findings and an order that the child was in need of protection under s. 37(2)(b-i) and (g) of the Child and Family Services Act, with the child to be made a Crown ward without access.

The respondent father withdrew his claim and the second respondent was struck from the proceedings, leaving only the mother to oppose the motion.

The court granted the motion, finding that the evidence overwhelmingly established the child was in need of protection due to multiple risk factors including the mother's untreated mental health issues, lack of family and community supports, limited child care knowledge, poor home conditions, substance abuse, financial instability, and choice of partners with criminal histories involving sexual offences.

A child protection trial concerning three children where the Children's Aid Society sought protection orders.

The central issue was determining who had "charge" of the two younger children immediately before intervention.

The mother had legal custody but the father had provided full-time care for approximately 66.6% of the ten months preceding the apprehension.

The court found the father had charge of the younger children and made custody orders accordingly, placing the eldest child with the mother and the two younger children with the father, with reasonable access provisions for both parents.

This is a child protection trial concerning three children (K.M.1, A.M.1, and M.M.) who were apprehended in March 2008 due to neglect and inadequate supervision.

The mother, L.M., had a history of transience, poor home conditions, truancy issues with her older children, and inability to meet the special needs of her younger children.

The maternal grandmother, B.D.1, sought placement of the children with her.

The court found the children were in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act and made them Crown wards, rejecting all family-based plans due to the mother's deep-seated personality issues, the grandmother's health limitations and credibility concerns, and the inadequacy of the proposed plans to meet the children's high needs.