Mark S. Trenholme

The Children's Aid Society of the Region of Peel sought extended care for two children, J and M, and specified access for the parents, T.R. and A.S. The parents sought the children's return to their joint care.

The court found the Society's initial removal of the children unjustified, concluding they were not at risk of physical harm in the parents' care.

The court determined that the children had suffered emotional harm due to their prolonged separation and placement in foster care, and that the Society had failed to apply consistent scrutiny to the foster parents' care compared to the biological parents.

The court ordered the immediate return of the children to the parents' care, subject to Society supervision and Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL) involvement, emphasizing the children's best interests and the parents' perseverance.

The applicant, the biological mother of the child J., brought a motion to change a 2016 final order that granted sole custody to the paternal grandmother (L.M.).

The applicant sought to change custody to herself, citing improvements in her mental health, stable housing, stable income, and an improved relationship with the child's father.

The court found that while the applicant had made positive changes in her life, these changes did not constitute a material change in circumstances sufficient to alter the child's custodial arrangements.

The court noted that the child was thriving in the grandmother's care and that the applicant had not demonstrated that the grandmother's care fell below recognized standards.

The motion was dismissed, but the court expanded access from three weekends per month to every other weekend, and granted summer vacation access and holiday access provisions.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's answer and dismiss all claims therein.

The respondent failed to comply with multiple court orders requiring financial disclosure, did not attend court proceedings, did not communicate with counsel, and left the jurisdiction.

The court found this to be an egregious and exceptional case warranting the striking of the respondent's pleadings.

The respondent's answer was struck and all claims dismissed, allowing the applicant to proceed on an uncontested basis with her amended application.

The respondent successfully brought a motion for disclosure against the applicant.

Following the motion, the parties agreed on costs, but the applicant's counsel failed to finalize the settlement.

The respondent then filed costs submissions, seeking the agreed-upon costs plus additional costs for the applicant's failure to follow through.

The court reviewed the principles of costs in family law, emphasizing indemnification, settlement encouragement, and discouraging inappropriate behavior.

The court found the applicant's conduct regarding disclosure and the costs settlement unreasonable and ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs, including an additional amount for the delay caused by the applicant's failure to finalize the settlement.

The defendant was charged with committing an indecent act.

The Crown alleged that the defendant approached the complainant and her friend in a Tim Hortons coffee shop and exposed his penis.

The defendant admitted being present but denied exposing himself, claiming he sat down momentarily to clear his head from a prior confrontation.

The trial involved testimony from the complainant, a police officer, and the defendant, as well as security camera footage.

The court found the complainant credible and rejected the defendant's account as implausible and contradicted by video evidence.

The defendant was convicted.

The respondent brought a motion to change a prior custody and child support order, seeking increased access to his son and reduced child support obligations.

The applicant opposed the access changes and sought recalculation of child support based on the respondent's increased income and elimination of his support obligations for two children from a previous relationship.

The court found a material change in circumstances warranting modification of the access provisions but not the child support amount.

The court granted overnight weekend access and extended summer access to the respondent, while imputing income based on his historical earning capacity as a truck driver and reducing his child support obligations accordingly.

The appellant appealed a change order made by the motion judge on June 10, 2016, which modified access arrangements for a seven-year-old child.

The original access order was made following a two-day trial on February 28, 2014.

The motion judge initially granted enhanced overnight access to the father on Monday and Thursday in alternate weeks to address the child's concerns about evening change-overs, but subsequently revised the order to Thursday overnights only in alternate weeks after the mother objected on child support grounds.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in principle by considering child support implications rather than the best interests of the child.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's revised endorsement, which was intended to address the presenting issue of evening change-overs while maintaining the overall joint custody arrangement established at trial.

The court determined child support payable from January 1, 2010 onwards, the income basis for that support, and outstanding arrears.

The applicant sought to impute income to the respondent based on past earnings, arguing he was wilfully underemployed.

The respondent argued his employment decisions were reasonable and support should be based on actual income.

The court found the respondent was not wilfully underemployed, though he was slow to seek alternative employment when positions proved unproductive.

The court attributed $42,500 income for 2010 and used actual income thereafter, resulting in minimal arrears of $69.00.