August 18, 2017|Cited 3x

Windsor-Essex Children's Aid Society v. J.D. et al., 2017 ONCJ 551

Case Summary

This is a costs endorsement in a child protection status review application. The Windsor-Essex Children's Aid Society sought a finding that a child remained in need of protection and placement in the custody of maternal grandparents. The father sought placement with his sister and her partner and sought access. Following a summary judgment motion granting custody to the maternal grandparents, an access trial was directed. After eight days of trial, the parties resolved the matter by consent, granting the sister and her partner supervised access six times per year for two hours per visit. Both the maternal grandparents and the father subsequently sought costs from each other. The court dismissed both costs claims, finding that neither party acted in such an exceptional or unreasonable manner as to warrant a costs award in this child protection proceeding.

WARNING

The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file:

This is a case under Part III of the [

Cited By (3 cases)

Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. C.P.I., 2023 ONCJ 293

This costs endorsement arose from a father's (D.S.) motion for travel consent for his child, which the mother (C.P.I.) initially withheld, forcing the father to bring a motion.

The mother eventually consented at the hearing.

The father sought $1,000 in costs.

The court reviewed the principles for costs in child protection cases, noting that while a high threshold for inter-parental costs generally applies, it is lowered when the dispute primarily resembles a domestic access issue rather than a challenge to the Children's Aid Society's intervention.

The court found the mother's conduct unreasonable, bordering on bad faith, for ignoring the father's requests and forcing him to incur legal costs.

The father was awarded the full $1,000 sought, payable in installments, despite the mother's limited income, to deter unreasonable behaviour and ensure compliance with court orders.

OCJJul 7, 2023

Children’s Aid Society of Haldimand and Norfolk v. J.H. and M.H., 2021 ONSC 2851

Following the settlement of a child protection proceeding, the respondent mother sought costs of $352,066.02 from the respondent father.

The mother argued the father acted unreasonably, necessitating an urgent motion mid-trial to enforce a parenting order after he failed to return the children.

The court noted that while costs are rarely awarded between parents in child protection matters, the father's breach of the court order justified a costs award for the urgent motion.

The court awarded the mother $15,000 in costs for the motion but declined to award costs for the entire proceeding, as the trial was not completed and there was insufficient evidence of bad faith to justify full costs.

SCJApr 13, 2021

FAMILY and CHILDREN’S SERVICES of GUELPH AND WELLINGTON COUNTY v. A.M.P. AND K.D.S., 2021 ONSC 2034

Following a summary judgment motion in a child protection proceeding where the children were placed in the mother's custody, the mother sought costs of $4,000 from the father.

The mother argued the father was extremely unreasonable in proposing the children live with his sister.

The court reviewed the jurisprudence on costs in child protection matters, noting that costs between parents are only awarded in rare and exceptional circumstances involving bad faith or extreme unreasonableness.

The court found that while the father's position was unreasonable, it did not reach the threshold required to order costs in a child protection proceeding, and dismissed the mother's request.

SCJMar 18, 2021