Rodrigue Escayola

The appellant mother appealed a custody order that placed the child in the custody of the respondent father after she relocated out of the jurisdiction.

She argued the trial judge misapplied the law and failed to properly weigh the factors regarding the child's best interests.

She also sought to introduce fresh evidence regarding the father's association with an individual charged with drug offences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's application of the best interests test or his weighing of the evidence.

The court also admitted the fresh evidence but concluded it did not warrant setting aside the custody order, noting the mother had not raised concerns with child care authorities and had elected not to return to the jurisdiction.

The applicants sought judicial review of a municipal council's decision refusing to designate a historic francophone church under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The council had passed a resolution requiring the property owner's consent before considering any heritage designation.

The Divisional Court held that imposing such a condition was manifestly unreasonable and contrary to the purpose of the Act, which contemplates balancing public and private interests and does not make owner consent a prerequisite.

The application for judicial review was granted and the matter remitted to the council for reconsideration.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Town Council resolution that required a property owner's consent as a pre-condition to any heritage designation under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The applicants, a group of parishioners, had requested the designation of a local church to prevent its demolition by the Diocese.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that the Town's resolution was patently unreasonable.

By imposing a condition not found in the Act, the Town fettered its own discretion and aborted the statutory decision-making process.