4 total
Appeal dismissed; buyer of imported shrimp bore the risk of foreseeable import permit denial.
The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding it liable for breach of contract.
The appellant had ordered shrimp from Panama through the respondent, but the Canadian Food Inspection Agency denied the import permit.
The appellant refused to pay for the shipment, arguing frustration of contract.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's finding that the permit denial was foreseeable and that the appellant, as the importer, bore the responsibility and risk of obtaining approval before placing the order.
Summary judgment Crown wardship upheld where no genuine issue requiring trial existed.
Parents appealed a summary judgment order making their children Crown wards without access in a child protection proceeding.
The appeal challenged the motion judge’s conclusion that there were no genuine issues requiring a trial regarding whether Crown wardship was the least disruptive alternative in the children’s best interests under the Child and Family Services Act.
The court held that the evidentiary record revealed no material factual disputes, but rather disagreements about the interpretation of undisputed facts concerning the parents’ commitment and capacity to parent.
Given the statutory time limits on society wardship and the children’s need for permanence and stability, summary judgment was appropriate.
The appeal from the denial of post‑Crown wardship access was also dismissed because the parents failed to adduce evidence satisfying the statutory test requiring proof that access would be beneficial and would not impair adoption prospects.
Appeal dismissed; Crown wardship order upheld after summary judgment in child protection case.
An appeal from an Ontario Court of Justice decision granting summary judgment in a child protection proceeding and making two children Crown wards.
The appellants argued that the motions judge erred in law by failing to follow the statutory pathway under the Child and Family Services Act and by not properly considering a parental plan involving support from a grandparent.
The appeal judge reviewed the record and admitted fresh evidence concerning the parent’s continued substance abuse and instability.
The court found that the motions judge applied the correct legal test, considered less disruptive alternatives, and properly evaluated the proposed family support plan.
The appeal was dismissed and the Crown wardship disposition upheld.
Leave to appeal costs order granted due to potential misapprehension of facts and errors in principle.
The applicant Children's Aid Society sought leave to appeal a costs order requiring it to pay the respondent stepfather's costs on a full recovery basis in a child protection and status review proceeding.
The motion judge granted leave to appeal, finding reason to believe the costs judge misapprehended facts regarding whether the Society withheld expert reports from the respondent, and erred in principle by treating a status review application as an extension of a protection application for costs purposes.
