4 total
Appeal dismissed; no-access order and full recovery costs upheld due to severe parental alienation risk.
The appellant father appealed a trial judgment granting the respondent mother sole custody of their youngest child, with no access for the father or the older siblings.
The trial judge also issued a restraining order against the father and awarded the mother full recovery costs of over $320,000 due to the father's bad faith and persistent disobedience of court orders.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding overwhelming evidence that the father had alienated the older children from the mother and that a no-access order was necessary to protect the youngest child's best interests.
The restraining order and costs award were also upheld.
Family court non-removal orders cannot be used to frustrate federal immigration deportation orders.
The appellant, facing deportation to St. Lucia, obtained an unopposed custody order and a non-removal order for her children under the Children's Law Reform Act.
The non-removal order was intended to trigger a statutory stay of her deportation under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
The respondent Ministers successfully appealed the non-removal order.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal, holding that family courts should not issue non-removal orders solely to frustrate federal immigration removal orders where there is no genuine family law dispute.
Appeal allowed and new placement hearing ordered due to errors by both lower courts.
The appellant mother appealed a Superior Court decision that overturned an Ontario Court of Justice placement order returning her twin boys to her care.
The children had suffered severe physical abuse by their father shortly after birth.
The Court of Appeal found that the appeal judge erred by conducting a de novo review and substituting his own factual findings without identifying a palpable and overriding error.
However, the Court of Appeal also found that the original placement judge failed to consider critical evidence regarding the mother's awareness of the abuse and failed to assess the risk of future harm.
The appeal was allowed, but a new placement hearing was ordered.
Appeal dismissed; Ontario retains jurisdiction over child custody due to risk of serious harm in Dubai.
The appellant husband appealed an order dismissing his appeal from a motion judge's decision to accept jurisdiction over child custody and access under s. 23 of the Children's Law Reform Act.
The respondent wife had fled Dubai with the child, alleging physical and mental abuse.
The motion judge found that the child would be at serious risk of harm if returned to Dubai.
The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings of abuse and risk of harm, despite concluding that an Amnesty International report should not have been admitted into evidence.
The appeal was dismissed.
