Paul Rowley

The court addressed costs for two resolved motions in a high-conflict family law file, neither of which the presiding judge had adjudicated.

The respondent father had initiated both motions concerning the parties' three children, one for travel and one for exchanges, both resolved by settlement.

The court emphasized the cautious approach required for awarding costs in settled matters, particularly when there has been no adjudication on the merits, making it difficult to apply Rule 24 factors due to insufficient evidentiary foundation regarding the litigation process and success.

Despite the general reluctance to go behind negotiated settlements, the court found an exception for specific issues raised by the respondent father concerning the mother's partner's interference, video/audio recordings, and unsupervised children.

The respondent was successful in obtaining an order addressing these issues.

Consequently, the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent $1,500.00 in costs for these specific issues, and all other costs claims were dismissed.

Foster parents moved to be added as parties in a child protection proceeding involving three children who had been in their care for 22 months.

The Sarnia-Lambton Children's Aid Society and the children's parents sought a final order based on a Statement of Agreed Facts, which proposed placing the children in three different kin homes.

The court dismissed the foster parents' motion for full party status, finding they did not qualify as statutory parents and lacked a legal interest for discretionary party status.

However, recognizing their significant role and the need for all relevant evidence, the court granted the foster parents expanded participatory rights, including the ability to file evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and make submissions regarding the children's disposition of care.

The court also declined to issue the final order based on the Statement of Agreed Facts due to concerns about the proposed plan and missing evidence, requiring a focused hearing on disposition.

The appellant father appealed an order for Crown wardship without access, arguing procedural unfairness because the trial judge proceeded with an unopposed trial after the father failed to file an answer to the Society's amended application.

The father argued that under the rules, he should have been deemed to rely on his original answer and was entitled to notice of the trial.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the child's best interests are paramount, the original joint answer was effectively moot, and any procedural error was purely technical and occasioned no substantial wrong.

During an appeal from a child protection judgment, the father brought a motion alleging the child protection agency and the mother breached a court order by failing to facilitate access with the child, and sought a defined weekly access order pending the appeal.

The court found no breach of any order, as the earlier endorsement only required the agency to investigate and arrange a possible meeting rather than mandate access.

The motion judge reviewed the extensive factual findings of the trial judge, including that the child had experienced emotional harm and expressed genuine fear of the father, and that forced access could cause further harm.

Applying s. 69(4) of the Child and Family Services Act, the court held that ordering access contrary to the child’s wishes would not be in the child’s best interests.

The request for access and the request for appointment of a case management judge were dismissed.

A child protection society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a Crown wardship order with no access for a child apprehended at birth and in care for nearly three years.

The mother opposed the motion and sought return of the child under supervision.

The father was in default and did not participate.

The court found the child in need of protection based on the parents' history with the society, prior judicial findings, and the mother's ongoing substance abuse, mental health issues, cognitive limitations, unstable relationship with the father, and lack of cooperation with the society.

The court rejected the mother's argument that a triable issue existed regarding whether her drug use negatively impacted her parenting ability, finding insufficient evidence to support such a claim.

The court made the child a Crown ward with no access to either parent, prioritizing the child's need for permanency planning and adoption prospects.