Rachel Healey

The parties brought motions regarding parenting time for their two children.

The applicant father sought equal parenting time, while the respondent mother sought primary residence, alleging a history of emotional and verbal abuse.

A key issue was the admissibility of a surreptitious audio recording of the applicant berating the respondent.

The court admitted the recording, finding its probative value regarding the applicant's conduct and credibility outweighed the policy against secret recordings.

The court ordered that the children reside primarily with the respondent, with specified parenting time for the applicant, finding that equal parenting time was not in the children's best interests due to the applicant's anger and denigration of the respondent's family.

The appellant appealed from a trial judge's order awarding sole custody of the parties' daughter to the respondent in Nova Scotia and adjusting the respondent's contribution to certain section 7 expenses.

The trial judge had heard evidence over three phases spanning more than two years.

While the respondent sought custody of both children, the trial judge found it was in the daughter's best interests to reside with the respondent in Nova Scotia, considering factors including the presence of both sets of grandparents in Nova Scotia, the daughter's wishes, the Office of the Children's Lawyer's recommendation, and the appellant's greater engagement with the son's hockey career.

The appellant also sought to admit fresh evidence regarding post-judgment access problems and non-payment of support.

The respondent mother sought full recovery of costs totalling $130,120.03 for five court appearances in a family law matter involving parenting arrangements and access to a child.

The applicant father opposed the costs claim, arguing the amounts were excessive and disproportionate to the relatively routine issues involved.

The court awarded partial costs only for two of the five appearances: $8,000 for the ex parte motion on January 12, 2015, and $8,000 for the motion on June 24, 2015, for a total award of $16,000.

The court disallowed costs for the case conferences and the settlement conference, finding that costs had not been reserved at those proceedings and that no clear winner or loser could be determined where parties settled their disputes.

The mother appealed a Crown wardship order, arguing that institutional delays in the appeal process, specifically regarding transcript preparation, breached her s. 7 Charter rights by allowing the child to bond with a prospective adoptive family over four years.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Charter application, finding that the delay did not cause the substantive prejudice alleged, as the passage of time also allowed the mother to improve her situation, but it remained in the child's best interests to stay with the adoptive family.

The mother was awarded costs for the Charter application payable by the Attorney General.

The appellant mother appealed an order making her child a Crown ward with no access.

The Court of Appeal previously ordered a new assessment because the proposed adoptive parents had separated.

The court-appointed assessor reported that the child was thriving with the adoptive family and would suffer emotional distress if moved.

The Court of Appeal accepted the assessor's recommendation, found it was in the child's best interests to remain with the adoptive family, and dismissed the appeal regarding Crown wardship and access.

A constitutional question regarding delay was deferred.

The mother appealed a decision dismissing her status review application regarding her child, who had been made a Crown ward with no access.

On appeal, both the mother and the Children's Aid Society sought to introduce fresh evidence, including evidence that the child's prospective adoptive parents had separated.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence, finding it could impact the outcome, and ordered an assessment report to evaluate the impact of the separation on the child.

The court also requested submissions from the Attorney General of Ontario regarding the mother's claim that institutional delays violated her section 7 Charter rights.

The appeal was reserved pending receipt of the further material.

The respondent father sought costs against both the mother and her counsel, Rocco Achampong, following the stay of his Ontario Court of Justice custody application when the mother commenced divorce proceedings in the Superior Court of Justice.

The father claimed $6,135 in full indemnity costs.

The court found that while the mother was entitled to proceed in the Superior Court of Justice, her counsel's conduct in bringing a motion without notice in that court while actively corresponding with the father's counsel about an imminent motion in the Ontario Court of Justice constituted a breach of professional obligations.

The court awarded costs against the counsel personally but dismissed the claim against the mother.