OCA 2013

The appellant appealed orders varying his access to his eight-year-old daughter to supervised access pending a satisfactory mental health evaluation, and imposing a restraining order.

The appellant argued the motion judge failed to consider key evidence and the best interests of the child.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's comprehensive analysis of the appellant's mental health and its effect on the child.

The court noted that the appellant had since undergone a medical assessment, and the respondent was prepared to consent to unsupervised access and the removal of the restraining order in the lower court.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The principal respondents were awarded costs of $50,000 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The respondent Cushman & Wakefield Ltd. was awarded costs of $10,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The father appealed from urgent temporary orders granting the mother temporary custody, support, and preservation of assets, arguing the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's application of the real and substantial connection test for the Family Law Act claims and the statutory criteria under section 22 of the Children's Law Reform Act for the custody claims.

The court affirmed that jurisdiction can be assumed on a prima facie basis for urgent temporary orders while adjourning the final determination of forum conveniens.

The appellants appealed the motion judge's refusal to certify a class action against the respondents.

The Court of Appeal declined to exercise its discretion under s. 6(2) of the Courts of Justice Act to hear the appeal regarding the refusal to certify the action against the College, Farnsworth, and the Estate of Haig.

The court directed that the appeal involving those parties be transferred to the Divisional Court.