Stephen Lawrence Zap

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for the immediate return of her two children, who had remained with the respondent father after March break during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The father had unilaterally withheld the children, alleging physical abuse by the mother, which was investigated and closed by child protection authorities without finding imminent concerns.

The court found the father's actions to be a "self-help remedy" contrary to the rule of law and granted the mother's motion for the children's immediate return, along with a modest request for costs.

The applicants sought a stay of criminal proceedings for sexual abuse charges, arguing that significant pre-charge delay amounted to an abuse of process and violated their Charter rights (sections 7, 11(b), 11(d)).

The charges stemmed from investigations in 2002-2004 that were closed without charges, but re-opened in 2017-2018 based on new disclosures from complainants.

The court applied the three-stage test for abuse of process from Piccirilli, considering prejudice to a fair trial or the justice system's integrity, alternative remedies, and a balancing of interests.

The court found no state misconduct or intentional delay, and accepted that the 2018 charges were based on new evidence.

It concluded that the interests of justice required the charges to proceed to trial, dismissing the applications for a stay.

The applicant wife sought summary judgment on various family law claims, including access, retroactive child support, retroactive section 7 expenses, and adjustments for a joint line of credit.

The parties resolved ongoing child support and equalization.

The court dismissed the wife's motion for summary judgment on access, finding a genuine issue for trial and requesting the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The court adjudicated the financial issues, imputing income to the husband for a period of incarceration and determining his share of retroactive child support and section 7 expenses, and the amount owed for the joint line of credit.

The Family and Children's Services of Frontenac, Lennox and Addington brought a status review application seeking Crown wardship without access for the child X.J.F.S. The mother, K.S., opposed this, seeking a supervision order to have the child returned to her care, a position supported by the father, J.B. The court found the child to be in continuing need of protection.

After considering the child's best interests, including the mother's inability to protect the child from unhealthy relationships and the paramount need for permanence and stability, the court ordered Crown wardship.

The court also granted the mother access, finding that her relationship with the child was meaningful and beneficial, and that access would not impair future adoption opportunities, but specified that access would be at the Society's discretion with a minimum frequency of once per month.

Child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act where the applicant society sought a Crown wardship order with a view to adoption for a young child who had been in foster care with paternal relatives for more than two years.

The court found the child to be in need of protection due to earlier neglect, poor parental decision‑making, and developmental concerns.

However, the evidence showed significant improvement by the mother, including stable housing, consistent participation in services, and successful unsupervised access visits.

Applying the CFSA principle that the least intrusive order consistent with the child’s best interests must be made, the court concluded Crown wardship was premature.

The child was returned to the mother’s care under a 12‑month supervision order with detailed conditions and continued oversight by the society.

Following a four‑day family law trial concerning custody and access to a child, the court determined the successful party's entitlement to costs.

The applicant had been substantially successful at trial and sought recovery of legal costs under Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules.

The court considered the parties’ conduct, settlement offers, and the factors under Rule 24(11), noting the absence of bad faith and the financial limitations of the parties.

While the applicant claimed approximately $18,529, the court fixed costs at a reduced amount.

The respondents were ordered jointly and severally to pay the applicant $10,000 in costs.

A biological father sought custody of his three‑year‑old child, who had primarily been raised by the child’s great‑grandmother and later jointly cared for by extended relatives.

The mother supported the relatives’ custody claim and acknowledged she was presently unable to parent due to substance abuse and instability.

The court applied the best interests of the child analysis under s. 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, considering the child’s established bonds with caregivers, the father’s relationship with the child, and competing long‑term care plans.

Independent assessments from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer and a home study in Iowa supported the father’s parenting capacity and proposed family environment.

Despite the stability of the relatives’ current arrangement, the court held that the child’s long‑term interests favored placement with the biological father and ordered that the child relocate to live with him in Iowa, with structured ongoing contact for the Canadian caregivers.