M. Vamos

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order to place three children in extended society care with no access to the respondent parents.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding the need for protection, citing chronic exposure to domestic violence and conflict in the home.

The children were ordered into extended society care.

The court granted summary judgment denying access to one father who had no relationship with his child.

However, the court found a genuine issue for trial regarding access for the mother and the other father, directing that issue to a focused hearing.

The Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton brought a motion seeking permission to proceed with a summary judgment motion in a complex child protection file involving three children.

The motion was heard via Zoom during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court considered the urgency of child protection matters and the court's evolving protocols.

One respondent, K.K., who was self-represented, requested an adjournment to retain counsel.

The court granted the Society's request to proceed with the summary judgment motion, allowing K.K. a brief extension to file further materials and retain counsel, emphasizing the need for timely resolution for the children.

This decision addresses the costs arising from competing motions regarding children's residence and parenting time.

The respondent was largely successful in the underlying motions, leading to a presumptive entitlement to costs.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the applicant's conduct, while misleading regarding relocation, did not unduly protract proceedings.

The court reduced the respondent's claimed partial indemnity costs by five hours of lawyer time to account for issues (equalization, property, spousal support) settled by a prior consent order that included a 'no costs' provision.

The applicant was ordered to pay $9,505 in costs.

The parties filed competing motions regarding the children's primary residence and the respondent's parenting time.

The applicant sought to relocate the children to Sunderland, Ontario, and for them to attend school in Uxbridge.

The respondent sought to maintain the children's residence in Brantford or Hamilton and to have unsupervised overnight access.

The court found the applicant was deliberately deceitful about her relocation intentions and that the move would disrupt the children's stability.

The court denied the applicant's request to relocate and ordered the children to return to the Brantford-Hamilton area by the December school break.

The court granted the respondent's request for unsupervised alternate weekend overnight access, finding no convincing evidence for ongoing supervision and that the existing access was inadequate.

Following a motion in family proceedings, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The successful party sought substantial or full indemnity costs exceeding $4,800, while the opposing party argued that such elevated costs were not justified and challenged the time spent by opposing counsel.

The court held that criticisms of counsel’s time expenditures were unsupported without a comparative bill of costs from the opposing party.

Given that several issues were resolved through Minutes of Settlement and did not require argument, the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs and instead fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant mother sought court approval for auto transplantation dental surgery for her daughter Juliana, who had lost three front teeth in a boating accident.

The respondent father opposed the procedure and favored waiting until the child reached maturity to undergo traditional dental implants.

The court found that the mother, as the primary custodial parent who had taken initiative in obtaining professional assistance, had the authority to make this medical decision.

The court approved the auto transplantation procedure, finding it to be a scientifically valid option with comparable success rates to the alternative procedure, and that it was in the best interests of the child.