Silja S. Seppi

The appellant mother appealed an Ontario Court of Justice order granting Crown wardship of her child without access following summary judgment in child protection proceedings.

She argued the motion judge misapprehended the evidence regarding improvements in her parenting, failed to consider extending statutory timelines under the Child and Family Services Act, and gave insufficient weight to her efforts to complete counselling and parenting programs.

The Superior Court held that the motion judge carefully reviewed the evidence and made no palpable and overriding error.

The court found there was no evidence demonstrating that the appellant’s program participation translated into improved parenting capacity and that extending statutory timelines would not be in the child’s best interests.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice action alleging that a paediatrician breached the standard of care by failing to conduct follow‑up glucose testing and refer a child to an endocrinologist after a hypoglycaemic episode.

They argued that earlier investigation would have led to a diagnosis of panhypopituitarism and prevented a later hypoglycaemic seizure causing permanent brain injury.

The court considered conflicting expert evidence regarding the appropriate standard of care for paediatricians and whether a single episode of hypoglycaemia required referral or further testing.

The court preferred the evidence of defence experts that the episode was transient and that further investigation was not required absent recurring symptoms.

It also found the plaintiffs failed to establish causation, as it was speculative whether earlier referral would have prevented the later seizure.

The parties separated in 2008 and initially agreed to joint custody with primary residence to the mother.

In 2010, the mother was charged with criminal negligence causing bodily harm related to her boyfriend's sexual assault of a minor.

The father sought sole custody and permission to move the children out of the jurisdiction.

The court found that the children were not at risk in the mother's care and that it was in their best interests to maintain primary residence with her in their familiar neighbourhood.

The court also ordered the father to pay child support, ongoing and retroactive spousal support, and an equalization payment.

Following the breakdown of a marriage, the applicant sought sole custody of three children and child support from the respondent, while the respondent sought continuation of a joint custody arrangement previously ordered by consent.

The court considered the parties’ inability to communicate, the respondent’s inconsistent exercise of parenting time, and the applicant’s role as the primary caregiver, including responsibility for a child with Type 1 diabetes.

Applying the best interests of the children and the principles governing joint custody, the court held that joint custody was inappropriate where the parents lacked effective communication and cooperation.

The court granted the applicant sole custody with structured access to the respondent.

The court declined to impute income to the respondent for child support under s. 19(1)(a) of the Child Support Guidelines due to credible evidence of disability and financial hardship, and expunged arrears while granting leave to renew the support claim if circumstances changed.

The accused applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms alleging a breach of the right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b).

Approximately 26 months had elapsed between arrest and the scheduled trial date on a charge of importing heroin.

Much of the delay occurred while the accused attempted to change counsel, pursued Legal Aid Ontario appeals, and brought two Rowbotham applications to obtain funded counsel.

The court found that the 15½‑month delay associated with securing counsel was neutral and attributable to the accused’s own decisions rather than Crown or institutional misconduct.

Balancing the Morin factors, the court concluded the delay was not unreasonable and declined to stay the proceedings.

In a high-conflict custody trial between a mother and paternal grandparents, the court held that the children's best interests required their immediate removal from the grandparents' primary care and placement in the mother's sole custody.

The court found the grandparents had systematically interfered with and undermined the mother-child relationship, fostering irrational fear and unhealthy attachment dynamics in the children.

A jointly retained psychiatrist's opinion recommending removal from the grandparents' influence was accepted, while the respondents' critique evidence was rejected as unhelpful.

The father, who was recovering from addiction and unable to assume parenting responsibility, received supervised access.

The grandparents' claim for child support was reserved.