M. Prost

The applicant brought a contempt motion alleging that the respondent failed to comply with a consent order implementing the parties’ property division following separation.

The order required the transfer of properties, release of mortgage liabilities, transfer of a vehicle, and payment of an equalization amount.

The court held that the equalization payment constituted a “payment order” under the Family Law Rules and could not be enforced through contempt.

However, the remaining provisions concerning transfers of property, assumption of debts, and transfer of a vehicle were obligations to perform acts and were capable of enforcement through contempt.

Because the affidavit evidence was insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent’s breaches were wilful, the court directed a focused one‑day trial to determine whether the non‑compliance was intentional.

The Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion in a status review application regarding two children who had been placed with their maternal grandparents.

The Society sought a final custody order for the grandparents, a continuation of a restraining order prohibiting the parents from contacting the children, and an order denying parental access.

The parents opposed the motion, arguing that access and their involvement in monitoring the grandparents' care should be determined at trial.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the mother's ongoing conflictual behaviour and the parents' lack of insight as established by a recent parenting capacity assessment.

Summary judgment was granted, placing the children in the grandparents' custody and denying the parents access.

A mother applied under the Child and Family Services Act seeking to resume access to her child and ultimately pursue an openness order following the Children’s Aid Society’s termination of access.

The child had been made a Crown ward with access, but a lengthy hiatus in visits occurred after the mother ceased exercising access for over a year.

The court considered whether the relationship remained “beneficial and meaningful” to the child, a prerequisite for access or openness arrangements under the statutory scheme.

Given the extended lapse in contact, the child’s developmental needs, and the absence of an ongoing relationship, the court found the statutory threshold was not met.

The application to resume access was dismissed.

During a child protection trial under the Child and Family Services Act, the society brought a mid‑trial motion seeking to admit documents from another society’s file relating to a prior protection proceeding involving a different child of the respondent.

The court considered whether the documents qualified as business records under s. 35 of the Ontario Evidence Act.

Documents containing summaries of anonymous allegations and an agreed statement of facts from the earlier proceeding were excluded because they contained prejudicial hearsay and lacked reliability.

However, assessment and service plan documents prepared by a caseworker in the ordinary course of child protection work were admitted as business records.

The excluded materials could still be used for cross‑examination of the respondent.

The Children's Aid Society sought Crown wardship without access for two young children due to the mother's chronic cocaine addiction.

Despite completing a rehabilitation program and demonstrating good parenting skills during supervised access, the mother continued to relapse and use cocaine, as evidenced by multiple hair follicle and urine tests.

The court found the children in need of protection due to the risk of physical and emotional harm from the mother's substance abuse and lifestyle.

Concluding that the mother could not control her addiction in the foreseeable future, the court ordered Crown wardship without access for the purpose of adoption.