2 total
The court struck the applicant's Reply because it improperly included extensive evidence.
The Ontario Court of Justice struck the applicant mother’s Reply in a family law case for including extensive evidence, contrary to the Family Law Rules which restrict evidence filing in Applications, Answers/Claims, and Replies.
The court emphasized that these pleadings are meant to define issues and claims, not to serve as vehicles for evidence, to ensure fairness, reduce delay, and avoid escalating conflict.
The decision reinforces the procedural boundaries in family law litigation and the importance of adhering to prescribed forms and processes.
Child placed in extended society care due to parents' ongoing intimate partner violence and inability to meet special needs.
The children's aid society sought an order for extended society care for a four-year-old child diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder.
The parents, who had a history of severe intimate partner violence, substance abuse, and criminal charges, sought a supervision order placing the child with the paternal grandmother.
The court found the child remained in need of protection due to the parents' ongoing volatile relationship and inability to meet the child's significant special needs.
The court rejected the kinship plan, finding the paternal grandmother lacked the capacity and insight to care for the child.
The child was placed in extended society care with limited supervised access for the parents, who were designated as access recipients rather than access holders to avoid impairing future adoption opportunities.
