Narissa Somji

The self-represented applicants brought a joint application to validate their religious marriage solemnized on May 2, 2019.

The parties had engaged in a religious marriage ceremony but were unaware of the requirement to obtain a valid marriage licence beforehand.

Applying the four-part test under section 31 of the Marriage Act, the court found that the marriage was solemnized in good faith, intended to comply with the Act, neither party was disqualified, and they subsequently cohabited as a married couple.

The application was granted and the marriage was deemed valid.

The applicants brought a joint application to validate their religious marriage ceremony, which took place without a valid marriage licence due to COVID-19 closures and restrictions.

The court applied the four-part test under section 31 of the Marriage Act.

Finding that the marriage was solemnized in good faith, intended to comply with the Act, neither party was disqualified, and the parties cohabited as a married couple, the court deemed the marriage valid.

The applicant father sought a change in parenting arrangements and decision-making responsibility for the parties' 12-year-old child, requesting primary residence with him and full decision-making authority.

The respondent mother opposed the primary residence change but was agreeable to shared parenting and sought to retain decision-making for health and education.

The court found a material change in circumstances warranting a review.

After a four-day trial, the court ordered shared parenting time on a week on/week off schedule.

Decision-making responsibility was split: the mother was granted final decision-making for medical and educational issues, while the father was granted final decision-making for dental and all other issues.

The court emphasized the best interests of the child, considering the parents' respective disabilities, their efforts to address past communication issues, and the child's wishes.

The father sought an interim order for joint decision-making and increased parenting time for their child.

The mother opposed, arguing for the status quo based on her primary caregiver role and concerns about the father's work schedule and the child's reactions to transitions.

The court found that the father had not acquiesced to the current schedule, which was largely a result of the mother's unilateral actions.

The court granted the father's motion, ordering joint decision-making and a gradual increase in the father's parenting time towards a 50/50 week-on/week-off schedule, finding it to be in the child's best interests.

The appellant, James Elliot Cornell, appealed his conviction for failing to provide a breath sample, arguing a breach of his s. 7 Charter rights due to delayed disclosure of a breath room video and reasonable apprehension of bias by the trial judge.

The Crown had provided the video to previous counsel and offered viewing opportunities to the self-represented appellant, which he did not fully utilize.

The appeal court found no s. 7 Charter breach, concluding the delayed disclosure was due to the appellant's lack of diligence and did not affect the trial outcome or fairness, as the video clearly showed an unequivocal refusal.

The court also found no reasonable apprehension of bias, noting the trial judge's comments were contextualized by the case's lengthy history and the appellant's conduct.

The appeal was dismissed.

The father brought a motion for an interim order to reinstate parenting time with his 11-year-old daughter, claiming the mother had alienated the child and unilaterally withheld access.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing the father's aggressive conduct and failure to abide by previous orders necessitated supervised reunification counselling.

The court found that the father was largely responsible for the breakdown in the relationship and his lack of parenting time.

Applying the best interests of the child factors under the Children's Law Reform Act, the court suspended the father's parenting time until he successfully engages in reunification counselling with a new counsellor at his own expense.

The applicant mother sought a final order for decision-making responsibility and primary residence of the parties' two children, as well as supervised parenting time for the respondent father.

The father failed to file an Answer or appear, and the matter proceeded as an uncontested trial.

The court applied the best interests of the child test under the Children's Law Reform Act, considering the history of family violence, the father's substance abuse, and the mother's role as primary caregiver.

The court granted the mother decision-making responsibility and primary residence, and ordered supervised parenting time for the father.

Following a judge-alone trial on one count of sexual assault against each accused arising from an alleged non-consensual threesome, the central issue was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant did not consent.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework and reviewed the complainant’s testimony against prior statements, medical evidence, nurse evidence, dating-app messages, and the testimony of both accused.

The court found multiple material inconsistencies and significant shifts in the complainant’s evidence, while accepting the evidence of one accused and much of the other accused’s account as credible and reliable.

The court held that, on the whole of the evidence, the complainant’s words and conduct as found by the court were not inconsistent with consent in law.

Both accused were acquitted.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa applied for an order placing a two-year-old Inuit child in extended society care with a view to adoption.

The mother struggled with long-standing addiction and mental health issues, lacked stable housing, and failed to consistently visit the child or engage with support services.

The father resided in Nunavut and was unable to care for the child.

The court found the child in need of protection due to the risk of physical and emotional harm.

Applying the best interests factors under the CYFSA and the federal FNIM Act, the court ordered extended society care with a view to adoption, prioritizing placement with an Inuit family to maintain cultural continuity.

Access was granted to both parents at the Society's discretion.

This motion concerned the temporary care and custody of two children, E.-L. and Z.P., following their apprehension due to ongoing adult conflict between the mother and Z.P.'s father.

The Family and Children's Services sought placement with the maternal grandfather, while the mother sought return of the children or placement with kin caregivers (the L.'s), and Z.P.'s father sought placement of Z.P. with him.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the persistent conflict.

It determined that the children could not safely remain with the mother.

The maternal grandfather was deemed unsuitable due to lack of assessment and negative reports.

The court ordered E.-L. to be placed in the temporary care of the L.'s and Z.P. to be placed in the temporary care of her biological father, Mr. P., conditional on him securing suitable housing.

The L.'s were also added as parties to the child protection proceedings.

The father brought a motion to terminate child support for his 19-year-old daughter.

The mother opposed and sought a retroactive increase in child support and arrears, arguing the father failed to disclose income increases.

Applying the Colucci framework, the court found the father's failure to disclose income constituted blameworthy conduct and ordered retroactive child support to March 2018, three years prior to formal notice.

The court declined to credit the father for discretionary payments made outside of child support.

Ongoing child support was ordered to continue as the child was enrolled in university.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a 2017 final order regarding parenting and child support.

The father had failed to provide financial disclosure for several years.

The court granted the mother final decision-making responsibility over education and health due to the father's lack of cooperation and the special needs of one child.

Primary residence remained with the mother with the father having weekend parenting time.

Applying the Colucci framework, the court ordered the father to pay $13,925.48 in retroactive child support arrears due to his increased income and failure to disclose, and set ongoing support at $808.76 per month.

The respondent mother brought a motion for an interim order for child support arrears and ongoing section 7 expenses, including costs for competitive hockey and swimming.

The father agreed to pay table support and his share of childcare, medical, and educational expenses, but disputed the arrears calculation and his ability to afford competitive sports.

The court dismissed the claim for 2020 child support arrears and deferred the 2019 arrears claim for further submissions based on the Colucci framework.

The court ordered the father to contribute to tutoring, laptops, and specific tournament fees, but found the mother failed to establish that the base costs of competitive hockey and swimming were necessary, reasonable, or consented to as extraordinary expenses.

The respondent mother sought costs of $7,200 on a substantial indemnity basis following her successful defense of the applicant father's motion to compel the interim sale of the matrimonial home.

The father argued for mixed success and that the parties should bear their own costs due to the mother's alleged unreasonable conduct.

The court found the mother was the successful party and that her conduct was reasonable.

However, the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the father's refusal to accept an offer to purchase his share did not warrant an elevated award.

Costs were fixed at $3,600 payable by the father to the mother.

Following a family law trial where the respondent father was largely successful on the dominant issue of parenting, he sought costs of $54,000.

The applicant mother argued costs should be limited to $1,000 due to her limited ability to pay and partial success on property issues.

The court found the mother's conduct unreasonable, particularly her persistent refusal to share parenting and her unfounded allegations of family violence.

After considering the mother's severable offer on debts and her ability to pay, the court ordered the mother to pay fixed costs of $45,000 to the father.

The accused, charged with sexual assault, brought a mid-trial Charter application alleging his s. 10(b) right to counsel was breached because he was not given the opportunity to speak to his counsel of choice.

After his arrest, the accused sought to speak with a specific lawyer, but when that lawyer was unavailable, he agreed to speak with another lawyer at the same firm.

The accused expressed no dissatisfaction with the consultation.

The court dismissed the application, finding the accused was not reasonably diligent in asserting his right to counsel of choice and the police had no additional informational duty to advise him of his right to wait for his preferred counsel.

The applicant mother brought an application for sole decision-making responsibility, parenting time, and child support.

The respondent father failed to respond, and the matter proceeded as an uncontested trial.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, citing concerns about the father's alcohol addiction and stability.

The father was granted parenting time subject to conditions, including abstaining from alcohol, and was ordered to pay child support based on an imputed income.

The applicant brought an application challenging the allegedly unauthorized transfer of an interest in his residential property to his former fiancé, creating a joint tenancy.

The applicant also sought a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL).

Following the applicant's death, his estate brought a motion for an Order to Continue the proceeding.

The court granted the Order to Continue and, on consent of the respondent, issued the CPL to preserve the property pending litigation.

The applicant father brought a motion for the interim sale of two jointly owned properties under s. 2 of the Partition Act.

The respondent mother consented to the sale of the rental property but opposed the sale of the family home, seeking exclusive possession.

The court found that the mother's right to claim exclusive possession under the Family Law Act was extinguished upon the parties' divorce.

However, the court denied the father's request to sell the family home, finding that he failed to plead the Partition Act in his original application.

Furthermore, the court exercised its discretion to refuse the interim sale under the Partition Act, citing the hardship it would cause the mother and children, the mother's offer to purchase the father's interest, and the need to resolve equalization issues at trial.

The parties separated after an 18-year relationship.

The mother sought sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of their 9-year-old child, while the father sought joint decision-making and equal parenting time.

The court found that both parents were fit and capable, and that the mother's allegations of family violence against the father were largely unsubstantiated or did not warrant a parenting order in her favour.

The court ordered joint decision-making and primary residence with the mother due to the child's established life in Renfrew, but granted the father significant parenting time.

The court also ordered the division of the matrimonial home and equalization of property, and directed the father to pay Guideline child support.