R. J. Harper

The applicant children's aid society sought an order for Crown wardship with no access regarding a 19-month-old child.

The child was apprehended at birth due to the mother's substance abuse and the parents' history of child protection involvement.

The father argued that the child's Métis heritage was not properly considered by the society.

The court found that the society made reasonable efforts to involve the Métis community, which declined to participate and supported adoption.

The court determined the child was in need of protection due to the mother's chronic drug addiction and the parents' inability to maintain a safe home.

The court ordered Crown wardship with no access, directing the society to ensure future placements educate the child on his Aboriginal heritage.

The plaintiff, a beneficiary of his grandmother's estate, brought a motion for directions and a Norwich Order against the estate trustees.

The plaintiff sought disclosure of the identity of a third party who received the bulk of the deceased's assets through a joint bank account with right of survivorship, which was funded by the sale of the deceased's home while the trustees acted under a Power of Attorney.

Applying the test for a Norwich Order, the court found the plaintiff had a bona fide claim and that disclosure was necessary in the interests of justice to determine if funds were improperly diverted.

The court ordered the trustees to disclose the identity of the joint account holder and produce all related banking documents.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants for vacant possession and payment under four mortgages in default.

The defendants argued that the guarantees and collateral mortgages signed by the spouses were unenforceable due to undue influence by their husbands.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting that the spouses had received independent legal advice and signed the documents despite advice to the contrary.

The court held there was no evidence of actual or presumed undue influence.

Summary judgment was granted, ordering monetary judgments and writs of possession.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment dismissing the respondent's claims, the applicant sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The court found the respondent's conduct in the litigation, including ignoring a valid separation agreement and demanding oppressive disclosure, warranted full indemnity costs.

The court reduced the applicant's claimed hours and disallowed travel time, fixing costs at $21,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The parties separated after a three-year common law relationship.

The applicant sought a writ of possession for his home, while the respondent sought interim child support for her two children from a previous relationship and interim spousal support.

The court granted the writ of possession but delayed its execution for 30 days to allow the respondent to relocate.

The court dismissed the claim for interim child support, finding the respondent failed to establish a prima facie case that the applicant stood in the place of a parent.

The court granted interim spousal support, awarding a lump sum of $1,200 and $600 per month for three months to assist with relocation, reducing to $114 per month thereafter.

The accused brought an application for disclosure of Source Debriefing Reports and Handler's notes relating to a confidential informant.

During a pre-trial Charter application, it became apparent that the Crown had not disclosed certain relevant information about the informant's credibility and reliability.

The Crown argued that providing a summary of the undisclosed information was sufficient and that it would not rely on the undisclosed information.

The court rejected this argument, holding that relevance is not determined by what the Crown chooses to rely on.

Applying the principles from Stinchcombe and McKenzie, the court ordered the Crown to disclose the requested reports and notes, redacted to protect informant privilege, to ensure the accused's right to make full answer and defence.

Following a successful appeal of a trial judge's order granting custody to the father and paternal grandparents, the court held a hearing to determine the appropriate disposition based on fresh evidence.

The court found that the mother and maternal family remained fixated on unproven allegations that the father sexually abused the child, posing a risk of emotional harm and further trauma to the child.

Consequently, the court ordered that custody remain with the paternal grandparents and the father, while the mother and maternal grandmother were granted supervised access, with a requirement for counselling before access could be expanded.

The parties separated after a 13-year cohabitation and 11-year marriage.

The applicant sought to resolve issues of spousal support, child support, and the timing of an agreed $90,000 equalization payment.

The court imputed income to both parties, finding the respondent was underemployed and the applicant had unexplained expenses exceeding his declared income.

The court dismissed the respondent's claim for ongoing spousal support, finding her entitlement was satisfied by previous payments from the family business.

The applicant was ordered to pay ongoing child support and retroactive arrears, with the equalization payment delayed until company mortgages become due or within three years.

The parties separated after a 40-year marriage.

The applicant sought an unequal division of net family property, claiming the respondent recklessly depleted assets, and advanced an unjust enrichment claim alleging the farming operations were a joint family venture.

The court dismissed both claims, finding no evidence of unconscionable conduct or a joint family venture.

The court also rejected the applicant's expert valuation of farm equipment due to bias and accepted the respondent's valuation.

The applicant's claim for repayment of a loan was found to be statute-barred.

The court awarded the applicant $9,000 in occupation rent and ordered her to pay the respondent an equalization payment of $140,000, subject to deductions.

The mother appealed an Ontario Court of Justice order granting custody of her 6-year-old child to the father and paternal grandparents.

The mother argued the trial judge erred by denying adjournments, misapprehending evidence of sexual abuse allegations, and granting custody to non-parties without mandatory police checks.

The Superior Court found no error in denying the adjournments or assessing the abuse allegations.

However, the court held the trial judge erred in law by granting custody to the grandparents without compliance with the Children's Law Reform Act and without sufficient evidence of the father's parenting plan.

The appeal was allowed, and the court ordered the filing of fresh evidence to determine the child's best interests.

The father brought an urgent motion to prevent the mother from relocating with their two daughters to the Ottawa area.

The mother sought to rescind a previous order prohibiting the move and ordering an Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) update.

The court found that a material change in circumstances had occurred since the last custody order, including the mother's undisclosed autoimmune illness and the special needs of one of the children.

Applying the Gordon v. Goertz framework, the court held there was insufficient evidence regarding the proposed new environment to determine the children's best interests.

The court denied the relocation pending a full hearing, confirmed the order for an OCL update, and ordered that if the mother moves, the father shall have immediate custody.