Civil Litigation - Defendant - ONCJ

The applicant father sought a court order for family reconciliation therapy involving himself, the respondent mother, and their child, E. The mother opposed, arguing it was not in E.'s best interests, citing E.'s expressed views against it.

The court, relying on a Voice of the Child report, found E. to be a mature teenager whose wishes, while considered, were not determinative.

The court noted the mother's problematic behavior in hindering the father-child relationship and her failure to propose alternatives.

Concluding that reconciliation therapy was in E.'s best interests to restore contact and address family dynamics, the court granted the father's motion and ordered all parties to participate in therapy under specific terms.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following a 9-day trial concerning contact between a child and the maternal family.

The applicants, the maternal aunt, uncle, and grandmother, sought full recovery of costs based on their success at trial and the respondents' unreasonable and alleged bad faith approach.

The respondents, the child's father and paternal grandparents, sought no costs, claiming divided success.

The court found the applicants were the clearly successful parties, having obtained an order for regular in-person and unsupervised contact that met or exceeded their settlement offer.

While the respondents' conduct in limiting contact was deemed unreasonable, the court did not find it constituted bad faith.

The court declined to award costs for prior steps in the litigation, citing the presumption against such awards unless specifically reserved.

Ultimately, the court awarded partial recovery of costs to the applicants.

The applicant, Andrea Morales, brought an 11(b) Charter motion for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay in a Provincial Offences Act charge for a noise bylaw violation.

The court applied the R. v. Jordan framework, calculating the total delay, subtracting defence-attributable delay and delay caused by the COVID-19 pandemic as an exceptional circumstance.

The net delay was found to be below the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial offence matters.

The court also addressed the applicant's claim regarding lack of disclosure, ruling that the municipal bylaw was a public document not subject to first-party disclosure rules.

The motion was dismissed as the applicant failed to meet the onus of demonstrating unreasonable delay.

The appellant, Wing Cheung, appealed his conviction for driving while holding or using a hand-held device, seeking to strike his guilty plea.

He argued that the prosecutor failed to provide advice and the court did not conduct a plea inquiry, particularly regarding potential insurance consequences.

The court found that prosecutors are not obligated to provide legal advice or inform about private collateral consequences like insurance.

The plea was voluntary and unequivocal, and the failure to conduct a s. 45 Provincial Offences Act inquiry does not invalidate the plea.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Children's Aid Society sought secure treatment for a child, A.A. The child's counsel brought a motion to strike references to Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) information from the Society's application, arguing it was improperly obtained and disclosed without a youth court order.

The Society contended the information was admissible as it was obtained during their guardianship and was part of their child protection records.

The court ruled that while child protection records are not YCJA records, Section 129 of the YCJA broadly prohibits disclosure of YCJA-related information by anyone who gained access to it, even if recorded in their own notes, without a youth court order.

The court granted the motion in part, ordering the striking and sealing of the original application and allowing refiling without the excised YCJA-identifying information.

The court issued a costs endorsement following a motion hearing on custody, access, and child support.

The mother sought temporary custody and child support; the father sought joint custody and unsupervised access.

The parties agreed on child support and primary residence with the mother.

The court granted the mother temporary custody with supervised access to the father.

The mother sought costs of $4,746; the father sought no costs or minimal costs.

The court found the mother was the successful party on custody and parenting time issues and awarded costs of $2,000, payable at $125 per month starting March 1, 2020.

The court declined to enforce the costs order through the Family Responsibility Office as the costs were attributable to parenting issues, not support.

The defendant was sentenced for two counts of breaching a section 161 prohibition order under the Criminal Code.

The defendant had previously been convicted of sexual interference against his stepson and was subject to a prohibition order restricting contact with persons under 16 years of age.

The defendant breached this order on two occasions by being alone with children without an approved adult present.

The Crown sought consecutive jail sentences totaling 12 months, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of 9 to 12 months.

The court imposed consecutive conditional sentences of 6 months each for a total of 12 months, followed by 3 years of probation, finding that a conditional sentence was appropriate given the lower end seriousness of the breaches, the defendant's rehabilitation efforts, and the low risk of reoffending when conditions were imposed.

A motion by a biological parent seeking an order requesting that the Children's Lawyer appoint a legal representative for an 11-year-old child in a custody and access dispute.

The child had been removed from the biological parent's care due to neglect and domestic violence concerns, and was subsequently placed with the other biological parent and their partner.

The biological parent sought custody or, alternatively, access.

The court declined to appoint a lawyer for the child, finding that reliable evidence of the child's wishes was available through therapeutic reports and that appointing a lawyer would cause additional anxiety to the child without sufficient offsetting benefit.

The respondent mother sought a costs award of $18,788.88 following settlement of a family law application.

The applicant father had commenced proceedings seeking to change the parenting plan from the existing arrangement (approximately 39% of the time with the children) to a 50-50 "week about" schedule, and to reduce child support accordingly.

The mother opposed the application and sought sole custody.

The parties settled on January 19, 2017, with the mother obtaining sole custody and the father's parenting time being reduced to every other weekend and one Wednesday evening per week.

The court awarded costs to the mother in the amount of $6,000.00, finding that while the mother was entirely successful, the father had acted reasonably in accepting the Office of the Children's Lawyer's recommendations and settling the matter relatively quickly thereafter.

The respondent sought costs of $2,455.04 for preparing for and attending a Legal Aid Ontario-facilitated settlement meeting that did not proceed because the applicant failed to attend.

The court denied the costs award, finding that the voluntary settlement meeting was not a step in the case authorized under the Family Law Rules and therefore fell outside the court's jurisdiction to award costs.

The court distinguished the case from mandatory mediation scenarios and held that policy considerations alone cannot support a costs award for a process beyond the court's authority.

A child protection summary judgment motion brought by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking Crown wardship orders for two children (ages 6 and 2) to enable adoption.

The mother opposed the motion and sought a full trial.

The court found that the mother's severe cognitive limitations (mild intellectual disability at the 1st percentile), combined with her inability to sustain consistent parenting during supervised access visits, her poor judgment in selecting caregivers and associates, and her failure to engage meaningfully with support services, established that there was no genuine issue for trial regarding Crown wardship.

The court granted Crown wardship but found a genuine issue for trial regarding access, directing a focused hearing on whether access would be beneficial and meaningful to the children and whether it would impair their adoption prospects.

A costs endorsement arising from a contested motion regarding access and ancillary orders for two children.

The respondent father was successful on all disputed issues concerning whether the applicant mother's partner could be present at exchanges and whether the father could pick up children at school.

The court awarded full costs recovery to the successful respondent, finding that the applicant acted unreasonably by insisting on her partner's involvement despite evidence of that partner's role in escalating conflict and despite the applicant's awareness of false statements made regarding the basis for the partner's bail conditions.

The applicant society brought a motion to dispense with service of protection application documents on the biological father of two children.

The court declined to dispense with service but instead granted an order for substituted service through the biological father's active Facebook account.

The court found that substituted service via Facebook was a reasonable and preferable method that would give the biological father the best opportunity to participate in the child protection proceedings while respecting privacy protections under the Child and Family Services Act.

A mid-trial motion by the respondent mother to amend her pleadings to include a claim for placement of the subject child with the maternal great aunt was denied.

The child had been in the care of the Children's Aid Society since 2013 following removal due to domestic violence and substance abuse concerns.

The mother had not previously advanced the kinship care plan despite multiple opportunities to do so, including at trial management conference and when filing amended pleadings.

The court found that granting the amendment would require a substantial adjournment, necessitate reopening the Society's case, and result in significant delay prejudicial to the child's need for permanency.

The court emphasized the importance of procedural efficiency and the child's best interests in child protection proceedings.

The applicant sought temporary spousal support following separation from the respondent after a four-year marriage.

The applicant, who lacks legal immigration status in Canada, sought $2,125 per month and imputation of $103,000 income to the respondent.

The respondent disputed financial dependency and claimed the applicant had undisclosed cash income.

The court found the applicant established a prima facie case for entitlement on both non-compensatory (need) and contractual (sponsorship undertaking) bases.

The court imputed income of $56,000 annually to the respondent based on unreasonable business expense deductions.

Departing from Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines due to basic needs exception and immigration sponsorship circumstances, the court awarded $1,000 per month in temporary spousal support commencing April 1, 2015, with arrears of $4,000.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a comprehensive consent order dated September 10, 2013, which granted the applicant mother sole custody of three children with the respondent having alternate weekly access.

The respondent sought joint custody and primary residence of two of the children, citing the mother's potential relocation to Cambridge as a material change in circumstances.

The respondent also sought to terminate child support for the eldest child.

The court found that the mother was not relocating and currently resided near the respondent.

The court determined that the respondent had not established a material change in circumstances and that the issues raised had already been comprehensively addressed in the existing order.

The court adopted a proportionate, expeditious process consistent with principles articulated in Hryniak v. Mauldin, ordering the respondent to file a written response addressing why the motion should not be dismissed.

The father brought a motion to set aside a final custody order dated April 24, 2012, which granted custody of the child to the aunt on a default basis.

The father claimed he was not properly served with the application and that the aunt committed fraud.

The court found that the father was properly served with the court documents, signed acknowledgement of service cards with full knowledge of their contents, and was well aware of the court case.

The court also considered the father's delay in bringing the motion, his failure to promptly pursue the motion while taking substantive steps in the case (the "fresh step" principle), and the prejudice to the aunt and child.

The motion was dismissed.

The respondent brought a motion for contempt of court against the applicant, alleging breaches of a consent order dated September 17, 2012.

The applicant opposed the contempt motion and brought a cross-motion to strike portions of the respondent's materials.

The court struck two of three paragraphs of the contempt motion as improper and struck portions of the applicant's affidavit containing inadmissible evidence.

The contempt motion proceeded only regarding an alleged breach of paragraph 3 of the order.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding the order ambiguous regarding the interaction between paragraphs 3 and 4.

However, the court found the respondent's conduct unreasonable in that he engaged in the same behavior he had criticized the applicant for—discussing major parenting changes with the child without consulting the other parent.

Consequently, despite being the successful party, the respondent was denied costs.

This is a costs endorsement following a summary judgment motion in a family law matter.

The applicant was successful in obtaining custody of four children, restricted and supervised access, a restraining order, and imputed income for the respondent.

The respondent's motion for shared custody and other relief was dismissed.

The court awarded costs to the successful applicant on a near-full recovery basis, considering the respondent's vexatious, manipulative, and harassing conduct throughout the proceedings, which significantly increased the applicant's legal fees.

The applicant, a municipal election candidate, failed to file required campaign financial documents by the statutory deadline under the Municipal Elections Act, 1996.

He sought an extension of time to file the documents, but the application itself was brought after the deadline for applying had passed.

The applicant therefore made two applications: first, to extend the time to apply for an extension, and second, to extend the time to file the documents themselves.

The court found strong mitigating circumstances, including good faith efforts to comply, reliance on an accountant who lacked proper qualifications, and the unexpected early birth of the applicant's child during the critical period.

The court granted both applications, finding that the Act should not operate as a trap for the unskilled or unwary.