Matthew A. Giesinger

The plaintiff initiated a negligence action against two psychiatrists following a tragic incident where their son killed their spouse.

The defendants sought to strike the claim.

The court determined that a duty of care related to the negligent treatment of the patient by the psychiatrists could not be established due to inherent conflicts of interest between the patient's best interests and those of third parties.

However, the court found that a claim based on a duty to warn third parties of a patient's danger was novel but arguable, particularly in light of the public safety exception to confidentiality.

Despite this, the duty to warn claim was struck with leave to re-plead, as it lacked sufficient factual particularity to meet the criteria for establishing such a duty.

The plaintiffs sought an injunction to prevent golf balls from the defendants' golf course from entering their property, causing damage and posing a safety risk.

The court dismissed the motion, primarily because the plaintiffs failed to provide a mandatory undertaking concerning damages as required by Rule 40.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Additionally, the court found that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favored the defendants, who had taken steps to mitigate the issue and whose business would be significantly impacted by the injunction.

The applicant child protection agency apprehended two young children.

The maternal grandmother, K.D.-M., sought to be added as a respondent and for the children to be placed in her care.

The agency and the children's mother opposed this, advocating for agency care with a plan to return the children to the mother, or placement with the father.

The court found that the agency improperly failed to name the maternal grandmother as a party, as she qualified as a "parent" under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act due to a Voluntary Service Agreement.

The court also determined that placing the children with the maternal grandmother, subject to supervision terms, was appropriate, as the risk of harm could be mitigated.

The maternal grandmother's motion was granted, and the children were ordered to be returned to her care.

The applicant sought a declaration that the respondent wrongfully retained their four children in Ontario under the Hague Convention and an order for their return to Melbourne, Australia.

The respondent did not dispute the applicant's custodial rights or Australia as the children's habitual residence, but argued exceptions under Article 13(a) (consent/acquiescence) and 13(b) (grave risk of harm).

The court found no unequivocal consent or acquiescence by the applicant and determined that the alleged past abuse did not meet the high standard for grave risk of harm or an intolerable situation.

The application was granted, and the children were ordered to be returned to Australia.

Father sought return of two children (ages 10 and 14) under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

The children were habitually resident in Michigan with the father and were retained in Ontario by the mother during a summer access visit.

The mother and counsel for the children opposed return, citing the children's objections and grave risk of harm.

The court found that the older child's objection was substantial and based on serious psychological and educational factors related to being a transgender youth in Michigan, meeting the Article 13 exception to mandatory return.

The younger child's objection was found to be a mere preference and did not meet the threshold.

The court ordered the younger child returned to Michigan and dismissed the application with respect to the older child.

The applicant sought an order for the immediate return of the child to New Jersey under Article 3 of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, alleging wrongful removal by the respondent to Ontario.

The court applied the hybrid approach to determine the child's habitual residence, considering all relevant links and circumstances, including parental intention and the child's connections to both jurisdictions.

The court found that the child's habitual residence immediately prior to removal was Ontario, not New Jersey, and therefore dismissed the application for return.

A temporary order was issued prohibiting the child's removal from Ontario without the respondent's consent.

The parties separated after a short marriage and had one child.

The mother moved to Trenton and initially denied the father access, while the father remained in Kingston.

The father sought joint custody and for the child's primary residence to be in Kingston, while the mother sought sole custody and to remain in Trenton.

The court ordered joint custody, finding that the mother's actions created the communication difficulties and that the father was a capable parent.

The court ordered the child's residence to be in Kingston with an alternating weekly schedule, and dismissed the mother's claims for an equalization payment and occupation rent.

Following a lengthy family law trial after the parties’ separation, the court addressed divorce, custody and access, child and spousal support (including retroactive amounts), equalization of net family property, section 7 expenses, life insurance security for support, and various adjustment claims.

Joint custody with primary residence to the mother was ordered along with structured access.

The court determined the parties’ net family property and ordered a pension division at source rather than through equalization.

Retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support were fixed based on imputed and actual incomes, and the father was ordered to contribute to section 7 expenses.

Claims for occupation rent and reimbursement of certain expenses were dismissed, and improperly obtained private emails were ordered removed from the record.