Sheilagh Marie O'Connell

The respondent brought a motion for contempt of court against the applicant, alleging breaches of a consent order dated September 17, 2012.

The applicant opposed the contempt motion and brought a cross-motion to strike portions of the respondent's materials.

The court struck two of three paragraphs of the contempt motion as improper and struck portions of the applicant's affidavit containing inadmissible evidence.

The contempt motion proceeded only regarding an alleged breach of paragraph 3 of the order.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding the order ambiguous regarding the interaction between paragraphs 3 and 4.

However, the court found the respondent's conduct unreasonable in that he engaged in the same behavior he had criticized the applicant for—discussing major parenting changes with the child without consulting the other parent.

Consequently, despite being the successful party, the respondent was denied costs.

The applicant, a self-represented litigant, sought costs following his successful opposition to the respondent's motion for spousal support.

The applicant claimed $5,920.38 for lost wages, disbursements, and preparation time.

The respondent opposed the costs award, arguing that the applicant had behaved unreasonably, that a costs award would cause financial hardship to her and their child, and that self-represented litigants are not entitled to costs on the same basis as represented litigants.

The court awarded costs to the successful applicant but reduced the amount from the range of $3,000-$4,000 to $1,500 to account for the respondent's limited financial means as a custodial parent.

A motion was brought to determine whether transcripts of children's evidence from a preliminary hearing in criminal proceedings were admissible in a child protection trial without making the children available for cross-examination.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer opposed cross-examination, arguing it would cause trauma to the children and that the transcripts should be admitted as hearsay under the principled exception or under section 50 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The court held that the requirement of necessity had not been met, as there was insufficient evidence of psychological trauma beyond mere nervousness.

The court ruled that the children must be made available for cross-examination, subject to protective safeguards including closed-circuit television, a support person, and cross-examination only by the mother's counsel.

The applicant mother sought an order for security for costs in the amount of $7,500.00 against the respondent father in a motion to change child support and access arrangements.

The respondent had failed to comply with multiple court orders for financial disclosure and a prior costs order.

The court dismissed the motion for security for costs, finding that while the respondent's non-compliance was serious, security for costs was not appropriate in a family law matter involving custody and access where the best interests of the child are paramount.

The court noted that the respondent was defending rather than pursuing the litigation and that ordering security would likely prevent the court from hearing evidence on what access arrangements would be in the child's best interests.

The respondent sought spousal support from the applicant in the amount of $1,354.00 per month.

The applicant opposed the claim, arguing that the respondent was not a "spouse" under the Family Law Act.

The parties had a single intimate encounter at a party, resulting in the birth of a child.

They never cohabited, never dated, and maintained separate residences.

The court dismissed the motion for spousal support, finding that the respondent failed to establish standing to claim spousal support as she could not demonstrate that the parties had cohabited in a relationship of some permanence as required by the statute.

The applicant sought costs for a successful motion regarding school placement for a child in a shared parenting arrangement.

The applicant was awarded costs of $3,000.00 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The court determined that the applicant was the successful party on the only issue before it—the choice of school—and that costs should be awarded at a level approaching substantial recovery rather than full recovery, as the applicant's offer to settle included terms the court declined to rule on and was therefore not as favourable as the court's ruling.

A status review application under the Child and Family Services Act concerning a child (M.) who had been in the care of the Children's Aid Society for 38 months following apprehension due to severe physical abuse of his half-sister (F.).

The mother was criminally convicted of assault causing bodily harm and uttering threats.

The parents sought return of M. to their joint care under supervision; the society sought a crown wardship order without access to facilitate adoption by M.'s paternal great aunt and uncle, with whom he had been placed since age two.

The court found M. continued to be in need of protection, rejected the parents' denial of responsibility for F.'s injuries, and determined that crown wardship without access was in M.'s best interests given his secure attachment to his current caregivers, the parents' lack of insight and cooperation, and the risk of harm if returned to parental care.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused challenged the lawfulness of the police investigation, alleging violations of section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court conducted a blended voir dire on the Charter issues and found that the arresting officer failed to properly formulate the requisite reasonable suspicion under section 254(2) of the Criminal Code for the roadside screening device demand, and further failed to establish reasonable and probable grounds under section 254(3) for the breath demand at the police station.

The court found that the officer's testimony regarding what the "F" reading on the approved screening device meant was entirely absent, and the officer admitted he had no grounds to arrest the accused until obtaining that reading.

The court excluded the breath sample evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter and dismissed the charge.

A costs decision following a motion to change custody and access arrangements.

The respondent sought to change the primary residence of the child and restrict the third party's unsupervised access.

The applicant opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion.

The parties settled on the basis of recommendations from the Children's Lawyer's investigation.

The court found that success was divided: the respondent was unsuccessful in changing custody and primary residence but successful in reinstating and significantly expanding his access to the child and refuting serious allegations of abuse.

The court awarded costs to the respondent on a divided success basis.

A costs decision following a trial on retroactive child support.

The respondent sought costs on a full recovery basis in the amount of $21,752.73 after obtaining a judgment for $5,000.00 in retroactive child support arrears.

The applicant sought no costs.

The court found the respondent was the successful party and had made compliant offers to settle that were as favorable as the trial result.

However, the court declined to award full indemnity costs, citing proportionality concerns and the applicant's financial circumstances as the sole custodial parent with no other income source.

The court awarded costs of $5,000.00, set off against the child support arrears owed.

Following a four-day trial in which the applicant was granted sole custody of a child, the court determined costs payable by the unsuccessful respondent.

The applicant sought full recovery costs of $29,912.50, while the respondent argued no costs should be awarded, claiming the applicant behaved unreasonably and the costs were excessive and beyond her ability to pay.

The court rejected the respondent's arguments, finding neither party acted in bad faith and both sincerely believed custody was in the child's best interests.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $10,000.00, considering the importance of the custody issue, the complexity of the case, and the respondent's modest financial circumstances.

The respondent sought costs in the amount of $16,712.50 for motions heard on March 2, 2012, relating to child access and support.

The respondent was substantially successful on the motions, with the applicant's contempt motion and taxi expense reimbursement motion dismissed, while the respondent's motion to strike was also dismissed.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis rather than substantial indemnity, finding that while the applicant exhibited problematic litigation behaviour, this had been addressed separately through a security for costs order.

The court fixed costs at $3,500.00, payable within 30 days or at $250.00 per month commencing October 1, 2012.

The respondent sought costs in the amount of $1,412.50 for time spent arguing a contested adjournment of a case conference scheduled for March 30, 2012.

The respondent contended that the applicant's counsel provided insufficient notice of his unavailability due to vacation and that the case conference should have proceeded.

The court declined to award costs against the applicant's counsel personally or against the applicant, finding that although an error in judgment occurred, the case conference was not a wasted appearance as temporary access minutes were negotiated and executed.

The court held that each party should bear their own costs.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services brought a motion to set aside an order dated April 2, 2012, in which the court had ordered both the Ministry and the Region of Halton to reimburse the respondent overpaid child support in the amount of $10,607.16.

The motion was successful because the respondent had failed to properly serve the Ministry with the motion materials and the endorsement.

The respondent had served the Ministry at the Region of Halton offices rather than at the Ministry's head office on Wellesley Street in Toronto.

The Ministry sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, alleging bad faith.

The court declined to award costs, finding the failure to serve was inadvertent and considering the respondent's limited financial circumstances.

The accused was charged with assault contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code for an incident occurring on August 3, 2010, at a Fernbrook Homes office in Burlington, Ontario.

The accused and his wife, frustrated with unresolved defects in their home purchased from Fernbrook, attended the office to speak with the building manager.

During the encounter, the accused became extremely angry, verbally abused staff members with profanities, and made physical contact with the office administrator, Amanda Newberry.

The accused admitted to pushing or "shushing" Ms. Newberry away with a sweeping arm motion but claimed it was a reflex action or that the contact was trifling.

The trial judge found the accused guilty of assault, rejecting the defences of involuntary action, self-defence, and the de minimus doctrine.

The respondent mother sought an order for security for costs in the amount of $25,000 and financial disclosure from the applicant father in a family law proceeding involving custody, access, and child support of a young child.

The applicant had filed numerous motions, engaged in vexatious conduct, failed to pay previous cost awards and child support, and made threats against court officers and the Children's Lawyer's social worker.

The court found that security for costs was appropriate despite the custody context, as the applicant's claim for joint custody lacked merit given the parties' inability to communicate and cooperate.

The court ordered security for costs of $25,000 if the applicant proceeded with the joint custody claim, or $10,000 if he abandoned that claim and pursued only expanded access.

A motion hearing regarding the respondent mother's legal aid certificate in a child protection proceeding.

The respondent mother's lawyer was removed as counsel of record in February 2012 due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship, six months before the scheduled trial.

Legal Aid Ontario refused the mother's request for a new lawyer, citing that a breakdown in the lawyer-client relationship is not sufficient grounds for a change of counsel.

The court found that the respondent mother has a constitutional right to counsel and that all four criteria from New Brunswick v. J.G. appear to be satisfied.

The matter was adjourned to allow Legal Aid Ontario and the Attorney General of Ontario to make submissions on whether the court should appoint publicly funded counsel.

The applicant brought multiple motions including one for contempt of access provisions, seeking compliance with court orders and reimbursement of taxi expenses.

The respondent brought motions for temporary child support based on imputed income, to strike the applicant's pleadings, to prohibit further motions without leave, and to change the access venue.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding legitimate reasons for missed access visits.

The court imputed income of $30,000 to the applicant for child support purposes based on inadequate financial disclosure and evidence of capacity to earn.

The court dismissed the motion to strike pleadings but prohibited the applicant from bringing further motions without leave of court, finding him close to vexatious litigant status.

The access venue was changed from Burlington to Oakville.

The accused was charged with two counts of unlawfully being in a dwelling-house with intent to commit an indictable offence contrary to section 349(1) of the Criminal Code, and one count of theft under $5,000 contrary to section 334(b).

The Crown alleged the accused entered the complainant's residence on two occasions without lawful excuse: first in July 2010 to steal audio cassette tapes, and second in August 2010 to plant a listening device to intercept private communications.

The accused claimed he had a lawful excuse as the residence was a matrimonial home.

The trial judge found the accused guilty of the August 2010 entry but acquitted him of the July 2010 entry and theft charge.

The applicant sought temporary spousal support from the respondent effective January 1, 2012, along with orders requiring the respondent to maintain medical, extended health, dental, and life insurance coverage.

The respondent opposed the claim, arguing the applicant was underemployed and capable of finding work, and that he lacked the ability to pay.

The court found the applicant had a strong compensatory claim based on her five-year absence from the workforce to care for their severely disabled child.

The court determined the respondent's income at $43,600 for 2012 and awarded temporary spousal support of $800 per month, with arrears of $3,200 payable at $250 monthly.

The insurance issues were adjourned pending further evidence.