1. Home
  2. Case Law

Case Law

When dealing with a family law problem, how can the applicable law be determined?

Ontario Family Law is based on statutes (laws), and jurisprudence (cases).  The various relevant family law statutes can be found in the “Resources” section of my website (www.monpremier.ca ).

The jurisprudence (or case law) which gives courts, and judges the “legal tests” (or legal checklist) which must be met to make a given Order is published by the Superior Court of Justice (Ontario).

Most Ontario judges, particularly core family law judges should be familiar with the cases enumerated in this section.  As a matter of fact, when drafting factums for motions, or trials, the cases which set out the “legal tests” on a given issue are not expected to be reproduced in the factum, or served on opposing counsel.

The list of cases deal with the following subjects:

  • Parenting;
  • Spousal Support;
  • Property;
  • Separation Agreements and Disclosure Obligations;
  • Summary Judgment;
  • Interim Costs and Disbursements;
  • Partition and Sale;
  • Occupation Rent;
  • The Trust Doctrines;
  • Preservation Orders;
  • Prejudgment and Postjudgment Interest;
  • Costs;
  • Motions Before Case Conferences;
  • Hague Cases;
  • Declaration of Parentage Cases;
  • Family Law Appeals : Standard of Review, Deference, Duty to Give Reasons, Adequacy of Reasons, Appeal of Costs, Reasonable, Apprehension of Bias, Appeal from an Interim Order; &,
  • Child Protection: Interpretation, Jurisdiction, Onus of Proof, Temporary Care and Custody Hearings, Variation of orders pending trial, Final Disposition, Procedural Issues, Appointing Counsel For parents, For the subject children, Statutory Pathway For Protection Hearing, Protection Findings, Status Review Hearings, Evidentiary Issues, Access, Charter Issues, Summary Judgment Motions, Appeals, Costs.

The list of cases reproduced below is current as of March 2012.  Please visit the Superior Court of Justice’s (Ontario) website (http://www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/practice/practice-directions/family-law-cases/list/) for an updated list.

Before you commence reading the cases listed herein, keep in mind that they are mostly Ontario Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada cases, drafted by scolarly judges.  This is not light reading.  The target audience, in theory, is the general public.  In reality, the target audience is judges of lower courts, law practionners and legal scolars.

Parenting

  1. Gordon v. Goertz, 1996 CanLII 191 (S.C.C.) (mobility, best interests of the child, variation of custody and access orders, material change in circumstances)
  2. Young v. Young, 1993 CanLII 34 (S.C.C.) (religion, rights of an access parent, best interests of the child)
  3. Kaplanis v. Kaplanis, 2005 CanLII 1625 (Ont. C.A.) (joint custody, best interests of the child)
  4. Ladisa v. Ladisa, 2005 CanLII 1627 (Ont C.A.)
  5. Linton v. Clarke, 1994 CanLII 8894 (Ont. Div. Ct.) (assessments)

With respect to parenting, custody and access of children under the age of two (2), you may also wish to read Marie L. Gordon’s papers entitled “Infants and Toddlers: An Update of Canadian Case Law on Post-Separation Parenting Arrangements”, and “Infants and Toddlers: Furthering our Collective Understanding of Their Needs in Post-Separation Parenting Plans”.

I also strongly recommend reading the thorough research prepared by J.B. Kelly and M.E. Lamb.  “Kelly and Lamb” are child psychologists who are considered by many as the authorities on resolving parenting issues involving infants and toddlers .  They are routinely cited by judges throughout Canada.  Some courts have gone as far as taking judicial notice of their clinical findings.

Child Support

  1. S. (D.B.) v. G. (S.R.), 2006 SCC 37 (S.C.C.) (retroactive child support)
  2. Lewi v. Lewi, 2006 CanLII 15446 (Ont. C.A.) (child support for adult children)
  3. Park v. Thompson, 2005 CanLII 14132 (Ont. C.A.) (adult children)
  4. Francis v. Baker, 1999 CanLII 659 (S.C.C.) (section 4 of the Guidelines)
  5. R. v. R., 2002 CanLII 41875 (Ont. C.A.) (section 4 of the Guidelines)
  6. Contino v. Leonelli-Contino, 2005 SCC 63 (S.C.C.) (child support where both parents have the children more than 40% of the time)
  7. Chartier v. Chartier, 1999 CanLII 707 (S.C.C.) (child support payable by a step-parent)
  8. Ewing v. Ewing, 2009 ABCA 227 (Alta. C.A.), application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada pending (section 4 of the Guidelines)
  9. Tauber v. Tauber, 2000 CanLII 5747 (Ont. C.A.) (section 4 of the Guidelines)

10. Tauber v. Tauber, 2001 CanLII 28234 (Ont. S.C.J.) (section 4 of the Guidelines and spousal support)

11. Drygala v. Pauli, 2002 CanLII 41868 (Ont. C.A.) (section 19 of Guidelines, intentional underemployment)

12. DiFrancesco v. Couto, 2001 CanLII 8613 (Ont. C.A.) (rescission of arrears)

Spousal Support

  1. Miglin v. Miglin, 2003 SCC 24 (S.C.C.) (spousal support in the face a spousal support release)
  2. Fisher v. Fisher, 2008 ONCA 11 (Ont. C.A.) (the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines)
  3. Bracklow v. Bracklow, 1999 CanLII 715 (S.C.C.) (entitlement to spousal support)
  4. Boston v. Boston, 2001 SCC 43 (S.C.C.) (pensions and “double dipping”)
  5. Willick v. Willick, 1994 CanLII 28 (S.C.C.) (variation of support orders, material change in circumstances)
  6. Moge v. Moge, 1992 CanLII 25 (S.C.C.) (entitlement to spousal support, objectives of spousal support, self-sufficiency)
  7. Davis v. Crawford, 2011 ONCA 294 (Ont CA) (broadens the circumstances in which lump sum spousal support payments can be awarded)

Property

  1. Stone v. Stone, 2001 CanLII 24110 (Ont. C.A.) (equalization of net family property, unequal division of net family property)
  2. Rawluk v. Rawluk, 1990 CanLII 152 (S.C.C.) (equalization of net family property, resulting trusts, constructive trusts)
  3. Peter v. Beblow, 1993 CanLII 126 (S.C.C.) (constructive trusts)
  4. Best v. Best, 1999 CanLII 700 (S.C.C.) (valuation of pensions)
  5. Serra v. Serra, 2009 ONCA 105 (Ont. C.A.) (unequal division of net family property)
  6. Levan v. Levan, 2008 ONCA 388 (Ont. C.A.) (setting aside domestic contracts, unequal division of net family property)
  7. von Czieslik v. Ayuso, 2007 ONCA 305 (Ont. C.A.) (unequal division of net family property)
  8. Kerr v. Baranow, 2011 SCC 10 (clarifies the law on constructive and resulting trusts and unjust enrichment on the breakdown of domestic partnerships)

Marriage Contracts

  1. Hartshorne v. Hartshorne, 2004 SCC 22 (S.C.C.)
  2. Levan v. Levan, 2008 ONCA 388 (Ont. C.A.)

Separation Agreements and Disclosure Obligations

  1. Rick v. Brandsema, 2009 SCC 10 (S.C.C.)
  2. Marinangeli v. Marinangeli, 2003 CanLII 27673 (Ont. C.A.)

Summary Judgment

  1. Aguonie v. Galion Solid Waste Management Inc., 1998 CanLII 954 (Ont. C.A.)
  2. Dawson v. Rexcraft Storage, 1998 CanLII 4831 (Ont. C.A.)

Interim Costs and Disbursements

  1. British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v. Okanagan Indian Band, 2003 SCC 71 (S.C.C.)
  2. Biddle v. Biddle, 2005 CanLII 7660 (Ont. S.C.J.)

Partition and Sale

  1. Latcham v. Latcham, 2002 CanLII 44960 (Ont. C.A.)
  2. Silva v. Silva (1990), 1 O.R. (3d) 436 (Ont. C.A.)
  3. Martin v. Martin (1992), 8 O.R. (3d) 41 (Ont. C.A.)
  4. Batler v. Batler (1988), 67 O.R. (2d) 355 (Ont. H.C.)

Occupation Rent

  1. Griffiths v. Zambosco, 2001 CanLII 24097 (Ont. C.A.)
  2. Higgins v. Higgins , 2001 CanLII 28223 (Ont. S.C.J.)

The Trust Doctrines

  1. Rathwell v. Rathwell, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 436 (S.C.C.)
  2. Rawluk v. Rawluk, 1990 CanLII 152 (S.C.C.)
  3. Sorochan v. Sorochan, 1986 CanLII 23 (S.C.C.)
  4. Pettkus v. Becker, 1980 CanLII 22 (S.C.C.)
  5. Peter v. Beblow, 1993 CanLII 126 (S.C.C)
  6. Wylie v. Leclair, 2003 CanLII 49737 (Ont. C.A.)
  7. Bell v. Bailey, 2001 CanLII 11608 (Ont. C.A.)
  8. Campbell v. Campbell, 1999 CanLII 2294 (Ont. C.A.)
  9. Vanasse v. Seguin, 2008 CanLII 35922 (Ont. S.C.J.), rev’d in part 2009 ONCA 595 (Ont. C.A.), application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada allowed

Preservation Orders

  1. Lasch v. Lasch, (1988), 13 R.F.L. (3d) 434 (Ont. H.C.J.)
  2. Bronfman v. Bronfman, 2000 CanLII 22710 (Ont. S.C.J.)

Prejudgment and Postjudgment Interest

  1. Debora v. Debora, 2006 CanLII 40663 (Ont. C.A)
  2. Burgess v. Burgess, 1995 CanLII 8950 (Ont. C.A.)
  3. LeVan v. LeVan, 2008 ONCA 388 (Ont. C.A.), application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed 2008 CanLII 54724 (S.C.C.)

Costs

  1. Serra v. Serra, 2009 ONCA 395 (Ont. C.A.)
  2. Islam v. Rahman, 2007 ONCA 622 (Ont. C.A.)
  3. M.( A.C.) v. M.(D), 2003 CanLII 18880 (Ont. C.A.)
  4. Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for Ontario, 2004 CanLII 14579 (Ont. C.A.)
  5. Fong v. Chan, 1999 CanLII 2052 (Ont. C.A.)
  6. Biant v. Sagoo, 2001 CanLII 28137 (Ont. S.C.J.)

Motions Before Case Conferences

  1. Rosen v. Rosen, 2005 CanLII 480 (Ont. S.C.)

Hague Cases

  1. Thomson v. Thomson, 1994 CanLII 26 (S.C.C.) (interpretation and application of Convention, wrongful removal)
  2. A. v. M., 2002 NSCA 127 (CanLII) (child’s objection)
  3. Jabbaz v. Mouammar, 2003 CanLII 37565 (Ont. C.A.) (harm threshold)
  4. Chan v. Chow, 2001 BCCA 276 (CanLII) (habitual residence)
  5. Korutowska-Wooff v. Wooff, 2004 CanLII 5548 (Ont. C.A.) (habitual residence)
  6. Katsigiannis v. Kottick-Katsigiannis, 2001 CanLII 24075 (Ont. C.A.) (subjective approach to acquiescence)
  7. Finizio v. Scoppio-Finizio, 1999 CanLII 1722 (Ont. C.A.) (adjustment periods)
  8. Pollastro v. Pollastro, 1999 CanLII 3702 (Ont. C.A.) (determination of risk of harm)
  9. Beatty v. Schatz, 2009 BCSC 707 (CanLII) (child to meet with psychologist), aff’d 2009 BCCA 310 (CanLII)

Declaration of Parentage Cases

  1. Trociuk v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2003 SCC 34 (S.C.C.) (unconstitutional for legislation to allow arbitrary exclusion of father from birth registration process, significance of fathers’ interests and dignity)
  2. A.A. v. B.B., 2007 ONCA 2 (Ont. C.A.) (declaration of third parent pursuant to parens patriae jurisdiction, importance of declaration)
  3. A.A. v. B.B., 2003 CanLII 2139 (Ont. S.C.)
  4. Raft v. Shortt, 1986 CanLII 1812 (Ont. H.C.) (no declaration of non-parentage under CLRA but available under CJA, issue estoppel, blood tests)
  5. J.R. v. L.H., (2002), 117 A.C.W.S. (3d) 276 (Ont. S.C.) (surrogacy, birth registration, custody, declaration of non-parentage under CJA, best interests of the child, sealing court file)
  6. Low v. Low, 1994 CanLII 7577 (Ont. S.C.) (anonymous sperm donor, standing in the place of a parent, CLRA declaration, access)
  7. Rypkema v. British Columbia, 2003 BCSC 1784 (B.C. S.C.) (surrogacy, birth registration, genetic parents)
  8. K.(M.S.) v. T.(T.L.), 2003 CanLII 27471 (Ont. C.A.) (sealing court file, best interests of the child)
  9. B. v. P. (1982), 35 O.R. (2d) 325 (Ont. Sup. Ct.) (support, delaying exchange of financial information, sealing court file)

Family Law Appeals Case List Updates

Standard of Review

  1. Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33 (SCC) (Standard of review is palpable and overriding error.)
  2. Stein v. “Kathy K” (The), 1975 CanLII 146 (SCC) (Findings of fact are not to be reversed unless palpable and overriding error.)
  3. Woodhouse v. Woodhouse, 1996 CanLII 902 (Ont CA) (No intervention in determinations and findings of fact unless the reasons demonstrate a manifest error, a significant misapprehension of the evidence, evidence has been ignored or erroneous conclusions have been drawn.)

Deference

  1. C. (G.C.) v. New Brunswick (Minister of Health & Community Services) [G.C.C.], [1988] 1 SCR 1073 (SCC) (Deference should be given to trial judge.)
  2. Nouveau-Brunswick (Ministre de la santé & des services communautaires) c. L. (M.), [1998] 2 SCR 534 (SCC) (Deference should be given to trial judge.)
  3. Hickey v. Hickey, [1999] 2 SCR 518 (SCC) (Need for deference in family law cases.)

Duty to Give Reasons

  1. R. v. Sheppard, 2002 SCC 26 (SCC) (Why a duty to give reasons.)
  2. Lawson v. Lawson, 2006 CanLII 26573 (Ont CA) (Tension between right to adequate reasons and deference.)
  3. Young v. Young, (2003), 2003 CanLII 3320 (Ont CA) (Rationale for the need to give reasons in family law context.)

Adequacy of Reasons

  1. R. v. Sheppard, 2002 SCC 26 (SCC) (Functional test.)
  2. R. c. Gagnon, 2006 SCC 17 (SCC) (Two stage analysis for functional test.)

Appeal of Costs

  1. Mete v. Guardian Insurance Co. of Canada, 1998 CanLII 7177 (Ont CA) (High discretion given to costs award.)
  2. Hamilton v. Open Window Bakery Ltd., 2004 SCC 9 (SCC) (Costs award should only be set aside if there is an error in principle or award is plainly wrong.)

Reasonable Apprehension of Bias

  1. Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo (Regional Municipality) v. C. (R.M.), 2009 ONCA 840 (Ont. CA) (Active participation of trial judge in child protectiOnt. CAse does not necessarily indicate bias.)
  2. Miglin v. Miglin, 2003 SCC 24 (SCC) (Test for determining reasonable apprehension of bias is whether reasonable informed person, with knowledge of all relevant circumstances, viewing matter realistically and practically, would conclude that the judge’s conduct gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.)

Appeal from an Interim Order

  1. Sypher v. Sypher, (1986), 2 R.F.L. (3d) 413 (Ont. C.A.) (The court should not interfere with an interim order unless the order is clearly wrong and exceeds the wide ambit of reasonable solutions.)

Fresh Evidence on Appeal

  1. Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto v. M. (C.), [1994] 2 SCR 165 (Test for the admission of fresh evidence on appeal.)

Child Protection. Case List

Interpretation

  1. Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto v. M.(C.), [1994] 2 SCR 165 (SCC) [Mandate of the Child and Family Services Act, but decision is pre-amendment to S.1 of the Act.]
  2. Syl Apps Secure Treatment v. BD, 2007 SCC 38 (SCC) [Section 1 was amended to separate and give priority to the legislation’s paramount purpose to promote the best interests, protection and well-being of children.]

Jurisdiction

  1. Winnipeg Child & Family Services (Northwest Area) v. D.F.G., [1997] 3 SCR 925 (SCC) [The parens patriae jurisdiction of the court does not extend to unborn children and thus cannot support the detention order of an expectant mother.]
  2. G.(C.) v. Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton-Wentworth, 1998 CanLII 3391 (Ont CA) [The procedure under the CFSA is paramount thereby precluding an order for custody under the CLRA of a Crown Ward.]

Onus of Proof

Temporary Care and Custody Hearings (s. 51)

  1. Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex v. T.(A) and D. (N.), 2001 CanLII 37748 (Ont SC), [2001] O.J. No. 219, 2001 CarswellOnt 195 (Ont. Fam. Ct.). [Test in a temporary care and custody hearing is a “likelihood” of harm, met on a balance of probabilities.]
  2. Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton v. T. and T., 2000 CanLII 21157 (Ont SC) [Test for temporary care and custody requires CAS to establish, on credible and trustworthy evidence, reasonable grounds to believe that there is a real possibility that, if the child is returned to his or her parents, it is more probable than not that he or she will suffer harm.]
  3. Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo (Regional Municipality) v. A.(B.), 2004 CanLII 12742 (Ont SC) [Test for making a temporary placement order with a third party is a reasonable likelihood of risk on something less than the ordinary civil onus of proof on the balance of probabilities.]
  4. Durham Children’s Aid Society v. A.M.K., 2002 CanLII 61270 (Ont SC), [2002] O.J. No. 2275 [Test for interim order under s. 51 listed in ascending order of intrusiveness for return with or without supervision or placement with third party in the community.]
  5. Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. M. (C), 2003 CarswellOnt 1826 (Ont SC) [Test for temporary care placement requires a reasonably grounded belief about the risk of harm that rises above the level of speculation.]
  6. Children’s Aid Society of Niagara Region v. M. (L), 2006 CanLII 27227 (Ont SC) [Test for temporary care and custody requires CAS to establish a risk of harm that cannot be adequately protected against by returning the child to a parent.]
  7. Children’s Aid Society of Brant v. S.M., 2008 CanLII 68140 (Ont SC) [Temporary care and custody requires CAS to prove it is more probable than not that the children would suffer harm and cannot be otherwise protected.]

Variation of orders pending trial

  1. CAS v. EL, [2003] O.J. No. 3281 (SCJ) [There can be no variation of a temporary care order without a material change in circumstances.]
  2. Children’s Aid Society of the County of Simcoe v. B.J.B.N. 2005 CanLII 33293 (Ont. CA) [Variation of a temporary care order is a two-stage process. The party wishing the changes must show: (a) that there has been a material change; (b) if there has been a material change, the court must consider the situation using the same risk criteria set out in s. 51.]
  3. Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto and C.Y., [1993] O.J. 257 (Div.Ct.) [On an adjournment of a status review application and a request for a change in interim care and custody pending trial, the test is best interests and not the risk test set out in section 51.]

Final Disposition

  1. F.H. v. McDougall, 2008 SCC 53 (SCC) [There is only one standard of proof in a civil case and that is proof on a balance of probabilities. There are no degrees of probability within that civil standard.]
  2. Children’s Aid Society of the Niagara Region v. P.R., 2005 CanLII 11791 (Ont.SC) [The onus is on the CAS and while the evidence must be convincing, the ordinary civil burden has not been changed.]
  3. Re Brown, (1976) 9 O.R. (2d) 185 [Intervention is only justified when the level of care falls below that which no child in this country should be subjected to.]
  4. Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton v. J.I., 2006 CanLII 19432 (Ont SC) [Should not to judge parent by a middle-class yardstick, one that imposes unrealistic and unfair middle-class standards of child care upon a poor parent of extremely limited potential, provided that the standard used is not contrary to the child’s best interests.]

Procedural Issues

  1. Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex v. H. (S), 2002 CanLII 46218 (Ont. SC) [Parties to a child protection case are not limited by the legislation and may be supplemented by the Court.]
  2. G.(C.) v. Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton-Wentworth, 1998 CanLII 3391 (Ont CA), 1998 CanLII 3391 (Ont. C.A.) [Foster parents may not apply for a status review hearing.]
  3. Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. D.B., 2002 CanLII 53290 (Ont CA) [The test for leave to withdraw.]

Time Line Restrictions

  1. Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton v. F. (K.), 2003 CanLII 67559 (Ont SC) [The court’s discretion to extend the statutory time limit that a child can be in care under s. 70(4) of the legislation must be based on the best interests of the child.]

Appointing Counsel

For parents

  1. Family and Children’s Services of the District of Rainy River v. S. (C.), 2010 ONCJ 75 (Ont CJ) [A minor parent is to be represented by OCL and this should not be lightly overridden without a request to do otherwise that is supported by a factual base for the court to exercise its discretion in that way.]

For the subject children

  1. C.R. v. Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton, 2004 CanLII 34407 (Ont SC) [Court may direct counsel be appointed for child under C.F.S.A., which is different than a referral to the OCL for consideration under the CLRA.]

Statutory Pathway For Protection Hearing

  1. L.(R.) v. Children’s Aid society of Metropolitan Toronto, 1995 CanLII 5589 (Ont. SC), 21 O.R. (3d) 724, 1995 CanLII 5589 (Ont. S.C.) [Importance of considering family/community placements and less restrictive alternatives throughout.]

Protection Findings

  1. Children’s Aid Society of the Niagara Region v. T.P., 2003 CanLII 2397 (Ont SC) [(a) Intention is not required to prove risk of likely harm; (b) Harm must be more than trifling; (c) The finding is based on the situation at the time of apprehension.]
  2. Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton v. C.(M.), 2003 CanLII 64105 (Ont SC), [2003] O.J. No. 1271, 36 R.F.L. (5th) 46 (Ont. S.C.) [The relevant time for making a protection finding is not limited to the time of the apprehension and the initiation of the case.]
  3. Jewish Family and Child Service v. K. (R.), 2008 ONCJ 774 (CanLII) [Domestic violence places a child at risk of harm.]
  4. Children and Family Services for York Region v. S. (A), 2009 CanLII 79436 (Ont SC) [The emotional harm to a child need not be intentional or an intentional failure to act, provided that the act is causally connected to the harm sustained by the child.]
  5. Children’s Aid Society of Niagara Region v. P.(T.) , 2003 CanLII 2397(Ont SC) [The CAS need not prove an intention to cause physical harm.]

Status Review Hearings

  1. Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. M.(C.), [1994] 2 SCR. 165 (SCC) [Court’s function on a status review hearing; Status review hearing is a two part process.]
  2. Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton v. M.A.M., 2003 CanLII 71148 (Ont SC), [2003] O.J. No. 1274 [The repealing of subsection 65(3) is consistent with the overall thrust of the amendments which focus the Court’s attention on the child in preference to the parent]
  3. Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. C.W., 2008 CanLII 13181 (OntSC) [A status review hearing cannot retry the original need for a protection order. The issue is whether the child continues to be in need of protection and, if so, what order is in the best interests of the child.]
  4. Children’s Aid Society of Peel v. w. (M.J.), 1995 CanLII 593 (Ont.CA) [Role of familial plans in status review hearings as they relate to the least restrictive placement concept.]

Evidentiary Issues

  1. R. v. Khan, [1990] 2 SCR 531 (SCC) [Ability of child to testify and when to accept evidence of child’s spontaneous statements.]
  2. R. v. Blackman, 2008 SCC 37 (SCC), [2008 ] S.C.J. No. 38, {2008] 2 S.C.R. 298 [Principled approach to the admissibility of hearsay evidence.]
  3. Stefureak v. Chambers, 2004 CanLII 34521 (ONnt. SC), [2004] O.J. No. 4253, 2004 CanLII 34521 (Ont. S.C.J.) [Admissibility of hearsay evidence of a child’s out-of-court statements is governed by necessity and reliability.]
  4. Sh. É.C. v. G.P, 2003 CanLII 2028 (Ont SC) [Considerations governing the compelled testimony of a child.]
  5. Children’s Aid society of Toronto v. L.(L), 2010 ONCJ 48 (CanLII), 2010 ONCJ 48, [2010] O.J. No. 686, 83 R.F.L. (6th) 431 [Admissibility of first-hand hearsay business records is governed by relevancy.]
  6. Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo v. R.C., 1994 CanLII 4520 (Ont CJ), 1994 CanLII 4520 (Ont. Prov. Div.) [Boundaries for evidence on past parenting conduct.]
  7. Children’s Aid Society of Niagara Region v. D.P., 2003 CanLII 1932 (Ont SC) [If adoptability is an issue, expert evidence is required.]
  8. R.L. v. Children’s Aid Society of the Niagara Region, 2002 CanLII 41858 (Ont CA) [The Act does not envisage a contest between members of a child’s family and a foster parent at a hearing to declare whether the child should be declared to be a society or Crown ward.]

Access

  1. Children’s Aid Society of Niagara Region v. C.(J.), 2006 CanLII 13956 (Ont CA)
    (a) [Presumptive burden of proof against access to a Crown Ward;
    (b) Person seeking access must prove that relationship is beneficial and meaningful to child based on relationship that exists at the time of trial and not one that is hoped for in the future.]
  2. C.A.S. Ottawa v. C. W., 2008 CanLII 13181 (Ont SC) [Onus on parent to obtain access to a Crown Ward]
  3. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. D.P., 2005 CanLII 34560 (Ont CA) [Even where a Crown wardship order gives no right of access to a parent, the CAS may, as a custodial parent of the child, permit the parent to visit the child unless the order expressly states that there will be no contact.]

Charter Issues

  1. Winnipeg Child and Family Services v. K.L.W., 2000 SCC 48 (SCC) [2000] 2 S.C.R. 519, [2000] S.C.J. No.48 [State apprehensions without prior judicial authorization in non-emergency situations do not violate s. 7 of the Charter, so long as there is a prompt post-apprehension hearing.]
  2. B.(R.) v. Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto, [1995] 1 SCR 315 (SCC) [Crown wardship violates parents’ s. 7 rights to refuse medical treatment for their child, but does not violate the principles of fundamental justice.]
  3. A.C. v. Manitoba (Director of child and Family Services), 2009 SCC 30 (SCC) [Court’s ability to mandate treatment for children under 16 years of age does not violate ss.2(a), 7, or 15 of the Charter.]
  4. New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. G.(J.), [1999] 3 SCR 46 (SCC) [State-funded counsel required by s. 7 in the context of custody proceedings involving the state.]
  5. Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto v. M.(C.), [1994] 2 SCR 165 (SCC) [s.11(b) of the Charter does not apply to the Child and Family Services Act.]
  6. Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto v. S.(T.), 1989 CanLII 259 (Ont CA) [Denial of birth parent’s access to child after adoption is constitutional.]

Summary Judgment Motions

  1. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. Kathleen T. and Charles W., 2000 CanLII 20578 (ON CJ), [2000] O.J. No. 4736, 2000 CanLII 20578 [Where a prima facie case for summary judgment is made out, the responding party must present evidence to show there is a genuine issue for trial.]
  2. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.H., <aclass=”outlink” href=”http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2000/2000canlii3158/2000canlii3158.html” target=”_blank”>[2000] CanLII 3158 (Ont CJ) [Specific facts reflecting a genuine issue for trial must be provided, not simply a heartfelt expression of a desire to resume care of the child.] [Mere denials do not raise triable issue of fact.]
  3. Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo v. R.S., 2007 CanLII 13504 (Ont SC) [The court must review the entire evidentiary record in deciding whether a genuine issue for trial exists.]
  4. R.A. v. Jewish Family and Child Services, [2001] O.J. No. 47 [Not every disputed fact or question gives rise to a finding that there is a genuine issue for trial.]
  5. F.B. v. S.G., 2001 CanLII 28231 (Ont SC) [A “genuine issue” must relate to a material fact or facts.]
  6. Children’s Aid Society of the District of Nipissing v. M.M., 2000 CanLII 22922 (Ont SC) [A summary of the principles applicable to summary judgment motions.]
  7. J.C.J.-R v. Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County, 2003 CanLII 2388 (Ont SC) [“no genuine issue” for trial equates to “no chance of success” and “plain and obvious that the action cannot succeed.”]
  8. Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto v. L.M.O. and M.P., 1996 CanLII 7271 (Ont SC), [Summary judgment can be ordered when the outcome is a foregone conclusion.]

Appeals

  1. Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33 (SCC) [Standard of review of law, fact, and mixed law and fact on appeal.]
  2. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. C. (S.A.), 2005 CanLII 43289 (Ont SC), affirmed on appeal, 2007 ONCA 474 (Ont CA) [Standard of review in family law cases.]
  3. Genereux v. Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto, (1985) 53 O.R. (2d) 163 (Ont. C.A.) [Appeal court judge is granted a “wide discretion” in deciding whether or not to admit further evidence.]
  4. Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto v. M.(C.), 1994 CanLII 83 (SCC), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 165, 1994 CanLII 83 (S.C.C.) [Admission of fresh evidence on appeal.]
  5. B.(F.) v. G.(S), 2001 CanLII 28231 (Ont SC) [The standard of review on an appeal from a court initiated summary judgment motion is correctness.]
  6. C.L. v. Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto, 2002 CanLII 2672 (Ont SC) [Reasonable apprehension of bias and trial fairness.]
  7. L.(R.) v. Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto 1995 CarswellOnt 1700, 1995 CanLII 5589 (Ont SC) [Appeal court may substitute the order when determining the appeal.]
  8. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. L.U., 2008 CanLII 26661 (Ont SC), 2008 CanLII 26661 (Ont. S.C.) [Court’s decisions on s. 70(4) extensions are discretionary, and reviewable on the standard of palpable and overriding error.]

Costs

  1. R. L. v. Children’s aid Society of Niagara Region, 2003 CanLII 42086 (Ont CA) [It is not usual for costs to be awarded in Child protection cases where an applicant is unsuccessful. Where unsuccessful parties are motivated by the best interests of the children a “no costs” award may be appropriate.]
  2. Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. S., [2003] O.J. No. 945 (Ont. Div. Ct.)
    (a) The rationale for making child protection cases an exception to the presumptive entitlement to costs stems from the fact that a Society has a statutory obligation to initiate and pursue proceedings where there is reason to believe a child is in need of protection and it should not be dissuaded from the pursuit of its statutory mandate by cost considerations.
    (b) The wording of Rule 24 (2) is unequivocal that the presumptive entitlement to costs does not apply in a child protectiion cases. Consequently, even between parents, for costs to be awarded there must be something more than merely the outcome of the case.]
  3. Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton v. V., 2001 CanLII 37747 (Ont SC), [2001] O.J. 2147 (Ont. S.C.) [CAS should not be penalized for attempting to fulfill its mandate, unless they have acted in some indefensible manner. They are not ordinary litigants.].

As always, feel free to contact me at law@monpremier.ca , or 613.841.9099 ext. 1 to obtain more information, or to schedule a consultation.

It looks like JavaScript is disabled. Please enable JavaScript or upgrade to a Javascript-capable browser to be able to view this website properly.

It looks like your browser is out of date. Please upgrade your browser in order to view this website properly.

Call Now ButtonCall now