Roselyn Zisman

The Jewish Family and Child Service of Greater Toronto (JFCS) brought a motion to appoint amicus curiae in a child protection proceeding concerning a 2-year-old child.

The respondent mother, N.D., had a history of mental health issues, inconsistent access, and had twice terminated counsel, indicating a desire to self-represent despite the society seeking permanent care and adoption.

The court considered the complex nature of child protection cases, the serious relief sought, and the mother's inability to maintain legal representation.

The motion was granted, and Tammy Law was appointed as amicus curiae to assist the court, with specific duties outlined, even if the mother later retained counsel.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a 2004 child support order, seeking retroactive child support and reimbursement for the child's post-secondary education expenses.

The court applied the principles from D.B.S. and Michel v. Graydon, finding the mother's delay in bringing the motion reasonable due to fear of violence, lack of contact information, and incorrect legal advice.

The respondent father was found to have engaged in blameworthy conduct by failing to disclose significant income increases for over a decade and underpaying child support.

The court ordered the father to pay retroactive child support from 2008 and contribute to post-secondary expenses, discrediting his claims of prior contributions as gifts.

The respondent (mother) brought a motion for the judge to recuse herself from hearing further matters in the case, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant (father) had filed an application seeking the return of a child to Ontario and to prevent the mother from removing the child without his consent.

The mother had taken the child to Ghana for five months without the father's consent and subsequently moved to Edmonton, Alberta.

The judge had made several orders including placing the child in the father's care pending the substantive motion.

The mother alleged bias based on the judge reviewing all materials despite her adjournment request, making findings of fact against her, denying procedural fairness, and making subsequent orders to enforce compliance.

The judge dismissed the recusal motion, finding that the mother had not met the high burden of establishing a reasonable apprehension of bias.

This is a Status Review Application under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act involving three children with special needs who have been in the care of the Children's Aid Society of Toronto.

The court found that all three children remain at risk of physical harm due to the father's serious and long-standing alcohol addiction, his inability to maintain sobriety, his lack of honesty and cooperation with the society and community supports, and allegations of inappropriate physical discipline.

The court ordered that one child be placed in extended care of the society and the other two children be placed in the custody of their paternal aunt, with access arrangements to be supervised.

This is a costs decision in a child protection proceeding under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The respondent mother and father sought costs of $5,819.50 against the Catholic Children's Aid Society following a motion for disclosure of case notes from a meeting between society counsel, society staff, and doctors from the Hospital for Sick Children.

The society initially claimed litigation privilege over the notes but waived privilege prior to the hearing, rendering the motion moot.

The court dismissed the costs claim, finding that the society acted reasonably in claiming privilege, provided appropriate disclosure to the parents through a subsequent meeting with medical personnel, and that the parents' counsel became unnecessarily fixated on the privileged meeting and engaged in inappropriate conduct toward society counsel.

A motion by the respondent father (VF) to split a child protection status review application into two separate cases was dismissed.

The application involved three children with two different fathers and a common mother.

VF sought to separate the case involving his child from the case involving the other father's children, citing privacy concerns regarding his criminal history involving child pornography convictions.

The court found that splitting the cases would not result in fairness to all parties, would not protect the interests of all children, and would not save time and expense.

The central issue of VF's criminal convictions, rehabilitation, and ongoing risk to all children required unified proceedings.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society brought a motion under section 14B of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act to suspend the running of time on a six-month supervision order by three weeks.

The order had been made on March 11, 2020, placing two children with their mother and one child in the temporary care of the society.

A Status Review Application hearing was scheduled for September 29, 2020, which exceeded the six-month supervision period by three weeks.

The court granted the motion, finding that the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act applied to child protection proceedings and that it was in the best interests of the children that the society not lose jurisdiction due to an apparent administrative error.

The Status Review Application was made effective as of September 29, 2020, and the matter was adjourned to December 2, 2020 for a case conference.

The applicant mother brought a motion to vary a temporary shared parenting arrangement (2-2-3 schedule) and to obtain decision-making authority regarding the child's school attendance (in-person versus online).

The respondent father opposed the variation and sought to maintain the shared schedule while requiring online schooling.

The court found that the father had emotionally abused the child by coercing her to make false allegations of physical abuse against the mother and her family.

The court granted the mother primary residence, restricted the father's parenting time to alternate weekends, granted the mother exclusive decision-making authority over school attendance and medical/counselling decisions, and imposed a police enforcement clause due to the father's history of breaching court orders.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion to change child custody and parenting arrangements.

The father sought costs on a full indemnity basis of $18,826.65 after the mother's motion to change was settled on terms substantially mirroring his offer to settle.

The mother initially failed to file responding costs submissions, claiming court staff told her she could not file.

The court set aside the initial costs order to allow the mother to respond.

After reviewing both parties' submissions, the court upheld the original costs award of $8,644.00, finding the mother acted unreasonably in commencing and continuing ill-conceived litigation without establishing a material change in circumstances, while the father acted reasonably throughout and served a timely offer to settle.

A temporary motion concerning parenting arrangements and relocation of a child.

The applicant, the child's step-grandmother, sought custody and permission to relocate with the child from Toronto to Fonthill, Ontario.

The respondent, the child's biological mother, opposed the relocation and sought expanded access.

The court granted the applicant temporary custody and permission to relocate, finding that the applicant had provided stable care for two years and that the move would not necessarily disrupt the mother's relationship with the child.

The court ordered supervised parenting time for the mother with specific access arrangements adapted to the new location.

The applicant (father) sought costs on a full indemnity basis in the amount of $18,826.65 following a motion to change brought by the respondent (mother) that was settled at a case conference.

The father argued he was successful, had served an offer to settle, and the mother behaved unreasonably causing unnecessary legal costs.

The court found the father acted reasonably and the mother's motion was ill-conceived and without legal basis.

However, the court declined to award full recovery, instead ordering costs of $8,644.00, payable by November 30, 2020.

The court considered proportionality, reasonableness, and the mother's ability to pay, and limited recovery to time spent on matters not related to specific procedural steps and the unnecessary case conference attendance.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion to vary a temporary care and custody order placing a three-year-old child with the maternal grandfather.

The motion was prompted by serious allegations of sexual abuse against the grandfather and domestic violence.

The maternal grandmother sought placement of the child in her care.

The court found a material change in circumstances and determined that placement with the society was in the child's best interests, citing the grandmother's lack of protective capacity, her historical pattern of abandonment, and her failure to disclose known abuse allegations to the society.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society brought a motion under section 116(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act to vary a December 10, 2018 order placing a 12-year-old child in the mother's care.

The society sought to place the child in its temporary care and custody.

The mother opposed the motion and sought to retain custody or alternatively place the child with her sister (the maternal aunt).

The court found that the mother had breached substantially all terms of the supervision order, including failing to maintain stable housing, refusing to sign consents for the society to communicate with medical professionals, and failing to cooperate with the society.

The court determined that the child's best interests required removal from the mother's care and granted the society's motion for temporary custody with access in the society's discretion.

The society was directed to investigate a kinship placement with the maternal aunt.

The respondent father brought a motion for leave to proceed with an urgent motion for access to his newborn son.

The applicant mother brought a cross-motion for leave to proceed with an urgent motion for child support, a compliance order regarding criminal recognizance, and a restraining order preventing contact.

The court considered whether the motions met the test for urgency and determined that while there were serious issues, they did not meet the threshold for urgent motion relief at that time.

The court found that the issues could be appropriately addressed through an urgent case conference scheduled for April 27, 2020, which could proceed remotely.

The mother brought an urgent motion seeking in-person access to her infant son, who was placed in the care of the maternal grandparents following serious non-accidental injuries sustained while in parental care.

The child was hospitalized with traumatic brain injuries, including subdural hemorrhage, retinal hemorrhage, and bruising.

The society opposed the motion, seeking to maintain virtual-only access due to COVID-19 pandemic concerns, particularly given the child's medical vulnerability.

The court dismissed the mother's motion and upheld the suspension of in-person access, finding that the child's fragile medical condition and the evolving pandemic risks outweighed the benefits of face-to-face contact at that time.

A temporary care and custody motion brought by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto regarding two young children: a five-year-old autistic boy and an eight-month-old infant.

The society sought placement of both children in its care, citing multiple protection concerns including the mother's apparent mental health issues, failure to meet the children's medical and nutritional needs, inadequate supervision resulting in injuries, exposure to domestic violence, and failure to ensure the older child's school attendance and special needs support.

The father faced criminal charges for assault and was subject to a no-contact order.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children were at risk of harm and that supervision orders would be inadequate to mitigate those risks.

Both children were placed in the temporary care and custody of the society.

This is a 15-day child protection trial concerning an 11-year-old child (G) who has been subjected to parental conflict, unverified allegations of sexual abuse by the father, and alienation from the paternal family.

The mother made repeated false allegations of sexual abuse against the father beginning in January 2017, which were investigated by police and the Children's Aid Society but never verified.

Despite multiple court orders for access and attempts at reunification therapy, the mother systematically prevented the child from having contact with the father and extended family.

The court found the child to be at risk of emotional harm due to the mother's alienating behaviour, coaching of the child into false allegations, and refusal to cooperate with therapeutic interventions.

The court ordered the child into interim society care for four months, followed by placement with the father under a six-month supervision order, finding that the mother was incapable of meeting the child's emotional and mental needs and would not support a relationship with the father.

The respondent father brought a motion to change custody and access orders from 2015, initially seeking custody but later withdrawing that claim and seeking increased access to the children.

The applicant mother opposed the motion.

The court found that both parents had contributed to access difficulties through miscommunication and inflexibility.

The court granted the father substantially increased access including monthly weekend visits, extended holiday access, and summer access in August.

The court terminated the restraining order against the father and replaced it with a conduct order under the Children's Law Reform Act, finding that the mother's fear was subjective but not reasonable given the passage of time and lack of substantiated threats.

The respondent mother brought a temporary motion seeking child and spousal support from the applicant father.

The parties had cohabited since 2001 and had one child born in 2013.

Following separation, the mother lost her full-time employment and was forced to leave the family residence, losing the benefit of a rent-free apartment and superintendent salary.

The court found the mother established entitlement to temporary spousal support based on economic disadvantage and need.

The father's income was imputed at $140,429 based on his employment income, superintendent salary, and the grossed-up value of his rent-free apartment.

The mother's income was imputed at $55,000.

The court ordered child support, spousal support, and contribution to childcare expenses, and required payment of outstanding costs from a prior motion.

The applicant brought a motion to change a child support order dated September 11, 2012, seeking to increase the respondent's child support obligation based on evidence of his actual income.

The respondent initially sought a reduction in child support based on alleged medical incapacity but provided fraudulent documentation.

The court found that the respondent had forged a union letter and was not credible.

Based on union records showing the respondent's actual earnings, the court varied the child support order retroactively to January 1, 2016, increasing the monthly payments from $303 to amounts ranging from $352 to $589 per month based on attributed incomes ranging from $39,303 to $63,426.

The respondent's motion to change was dismissed, and the applicant's claim for transportation costs was dismissed.