Ruza Ljumovic

This family law proceeding addressed issues of custody, access, child support, arrears, equalization of net family property, and the children's passports following the parties' separation.

The applicant sought sole custody, table child support, and the ability to obtain passports for the children, while the respondent sought joint custody, reduced child support due to hardship, and opposed passports.

The court granted the applicant sole custody, finding that joint custody was unworkable due to the parents' inability to communicate effectively.

The respondent was granted liberal access with a structured schedule.

The court ordered the respondent to pay table child support, rejecting his undue hardship claim, and fixed child support arrears at a reduced amount.

An equalization payment was also ordered, and the applicant was permitted to obtain passports for the children.

This is a status review application under the Child and Family Services Act brought by the Windsor-Essex Children's Aid Society seeking a finding that a child remains in need of protection and an order of Crown wardship without access.

The Society sought to introduce hearsay statements made by the child's siblings to third parties.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine the admissibility of these statements under both the state of mind exception and the principled approach to hearsay.

The court found that certain statements met the threshold reliability requirements and were admissible, while others did not satisfy the criteria for admission.

This is a ruling on a voir dire motion during a status review trial under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

The respondent maternal grandmother sought to qualify Paul Adams as an expert witness to provide opinion evidence on three matters: assessing the risk status of sexual offenders regarding potential re-offending, providing relapse prevention recommendations, and providing treatment recommendations.

The Children's Aid Society opposed only the first area.

The court denied the motion to qualify Adams as an expert, finding he lacked sufficient qualifications to offer opinion evidence on sexual offender risk assessment.