Richard Harrison Barch

This trial of an issue concerned the determination of the date of separation for the purpose of property division and spousal support in a divorce application.

The applicant contended a separation date of July 2014, following a significant marital conflict, while the respondent argued for an earlier date in June 2000, when the applicant moved into separate quarters within the matrimonial home.

The court applied the "indicia of separation" framework, considering objective factors such as living arrangements, sexual relations, shared activities, financial contributions, and tax filings.

Despite the parties living under the same roof for an extended period, the court found that the matrimonial consortium was not destroyed until July 2014, when the applicant unequivocally decided to end the marriage by retaining legal counsel.

The court fixed the date of separation as July 31, 2014.

This is a child protection trial concerning access to a Crown ward.

The child, A.B., was made a Crown ward without access in 2011.

The mother appealed the no-access provision, and the Superior Court ordered a trial on the access issue alone.

The trial examined whether the mother-child relationship was meaningful and beneficial to the child as required under section 59(2.1) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The court found that while a meaningful bond existed, the relationship was not beneficial to the child due to the mother's persistent disregard of court-ordered access conditions, her pattern of encouraging the child to break rules, and her lack of insight into the harm caused to the child.

The court dismissed the mother's claim for access and upheld the no-access order.

The appellant mother appealed an order of the Ontario Court of Justice that made her child a Crown ward without access following a summary judgment motion brought by the child protection agency.

The appeal challenged only the no-access component of the order.

The court held that the motion judge failed to analyze the statutory criteria governing post‑wardship access under the Child and Family Services Act, including whether the relationship was beneficial and meaningful and whether access would impair adoption prospects.

The judge also failed to address the child’s best interests and provided inadequate reasons, while later varying the access order without ensuring the mother or her counsel were present to make submissions.

The appeal was allowed, the no‑access order was set aside, and the access issue was remitted for trial.