Wendy M. Matheson

In a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, the moving party sought interim supervised access to a child pending the hearing of an appeal from a Crown wardship order.

The motion also requested leave to file fresh affidavit evidence.

While the additional affidavits were not opposed, the court declined to vary the existing order denying access.

Applying s. 59(2.1) of the Act and relevant appellate authorities, the court emphasized that access to a Crown ward requires proof that the relationship is both beneficial and meaningful to the child and will not impair adoption prospects.

Given the impending appeal and the risk of disrupting the child’s welfare shortly before the appeal hearing, the court held it was preferable to leave the matter to the appeal judge.

Following dismissal of the plaintiff’s employment-related claim under the Simplified Procedure, the court determined costs.

The defendant sought costs based on the plaintiff’s litigation conduct, including refusal to consent to a pleading amendment, late service of materials, failure to comply with procedural timelines, and conduct that caused adjournment of the trial.

The court considered the discretion under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, along with the parties’ settlement offers under Rule 49.

The court found the plaintiff’s conduct lengthened the proceedings and warranted costs above partial indemnity.

Costs were fixed in favour of the defendant in the amount of $38,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The court determined the issue of costs in a long-running family law proceeding involving access to children after the respondent’s pleadings had been struck.

The respondent relied on Rule 24(10) of the Family Law Rules, arguing costs should have been decided promptly after each step.

The court found that costs had been adjourned to allow the self‑represented respondent an opportunity to retain counsel and that no earlier opportunity existed to assess them.

Reviewing the bill of costs and the procedural history, the court concluded the matter was not complex but had been prolonged by the respondent’s conduct.

Costs were awarded to the applicant in the amount of $8,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The defendant Ministry of the Environment brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dismissing its Rule 21 motion.

The underlying action involved a corporate plaintiff alleging that the Ministry's investigation, press releases, and threats of core drilling violated its rights under sections 7, 8, and 11 of the Charter, despite no charges being laid.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding that there were conflicting decisions regarding whether a corporation could assert these Charter rights in the absence of penal proceedings, and that the issues raised were of sufficient importance to warrant appellate review.