Reported Decisions

Below are a list of our reported decisions. Decisions are usually only reported where the case is factually or legally significant. Note that many family law and child protection cases are resolved or decided without decisions being reported by the court.

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v.T.L., (2018) ONCJ 691 – Successfully excluded urine screens at temporary hearing and secured return of child to family.
Lemon v. Lemon, 2018 ONCA 684 – Successfully appealed an access order which resulted in significant increase in access for our client. The Court held that court orders must be consistent with Charter values.
Office of the Children’s Lawyer v. Balev, 2018 SCC 16 – Successfully argued for the adoption of the hybrid approach in determining habitual residence under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction at the Supreme Court of Canada.
Cheng v. Yu, [2017] O.J. No. 6411 – Successfully obtained a cost award for the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.
Cheng v. Yu, (2017) ONCJ 563 – Successfully represented the child on summary judgment motion brought by the child for custody and access. Successfully had evidence presented by Applicants struck on various grounds.
P.M. v. M.A., (2017) ONCA 6 – Successfully represented the children at the Court of Appeal. The Court clarified its jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of the Divisional Court to hear appeals of interlocutory orders.
Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. G.C., (2016) ONCJ 411 – Successfully defended mother in a 9-day child protection trial where issue was mother’s ability to protect the children given the father’s previous history of sexual abuse on other children. Case involved expert evidence from two psychiatrists. The Court noted that the children could be protected at the present time with a supervision order while allowing the mother to supervise father’s contact with the children.
Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. M.S., (2016) ONCA 396 – Successfully represented the Children’s Aid Society at the Court of Appeal. The Court reaffirmed the legal test for leave to bring a status review application.
C atholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. P.N.S., (2016) ONCJ 164 – Represented father in lengthy trial for Crown Wardship.
Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. J.R.C., (2015) ONCJ 729 – Successfully secured state-funding for an unrepresented litigant facing a trial for a supervision order. The Court found that the mother’s s.7 Charter rights had been infringed and found that the mother was unable to afford a 4-day trial on her income. This is the first reported case in Canada where state-funded counsel has been ordered for a trial on a supervision order.
Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. M.C., (2015) ONCJ 427 – Successfully secured return of child to mother after trial and obtained a cost award against the Children’s Aid Society. The Court found that the Society had maligned the mother and ballooned the level of risk posed by mother.
Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. M.R., (2014) ONCJ 666 – Successfully argued that the child should be placed with a kinship caregiver on a temporary care and custody motion. The Court further noted that cognitive limitations, alone, cannot be a reason to separate a child from her parent.
Massaquoi v. Jane Finch Community Legal Services, [2013] HRTO 1698 – Successfully represented Legal Aid Ontario in resisting a request by the employee of a community clinic to add the organization as a party to proceedings at the Human Rights Tribunal.
Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. K.D., [2011] O.J. No. 724 (Ct. J.) – Successfully defended a motion brought by the Children’s Aid Society to vary an ongoing temporary supervision order and have the children placed in care. The Court enunciated a new test for variation of temporary orders in child protection proceedings where a dispositional order had not yet been made. The Court further noted that the parents were represented by able counsel.
Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. D.L., [2011] ONCJ 784 – Represented the Respondent mother in a lengthy 25 day trial for Crown Wardship. Although ultimately unsuccessful, the Court noted that counsel were extremely committed to the trial and thorough, leaving no stone unturned.
Ball v. Broger, [2010] O.J. No. 5824 (Ct. J.) – Successfully obtained child support and special expenses for 18 year-old child against her mother. The Court reviewed the extensive evidence provided and found that the child had not voluntarily withdrawn from parental control, and was thus entitled to support. The Court thanked counsel for excellent presentation of the motion.
Native Child and Family Services of Toronto v. S.P., [2009] O.J. No. 4160 (Ct. J.) – The Court refused a request by the Ministry of the Attorney General to deny production of relevant police records and adjourn a child protection trial. The Court held that the records were relevant to the Society’s case and that there would be no abuse of process if the child protection matter was concluded before the criminal trial.
Native Child and Family Services v. S.P., [2009] O.J. No. 5787 (Ct.J.) – Successfully represented Native Child and Family Services in obtaining favourable rulings on the admissibility of multiple children’s statements at the end of a voir dire that spanned more than 10 days of trial.
Children and Family Services for York Region v. H.C., [2009] O.J. No. 3460; [2009] O.J. No. 3527 (Div. Ct.) – Successfully represented a hard of hearing parent in defending an appeal brought by the Children’s Aid Society. The Divisional Court found that the trial judge had not made any errors in returning the child to her family. Due to the issues raised, the Canadian Hearing Society was successfully asked to intervene.
Children and Family Services for York Region v. H.C., [2009] O.J. No. 4482 (Div. Ct.) – Court denied the parents’ request for costs against the Children’s Aid Society, noting that there is no presumption for costs against a government agency despite the Respondents’ success.
Children’s Aid Society of the Districts of Sudbury and Manitoulin v. I.D., [2008] O.J. No. 4069 (C.A.) – Successfully represented the Children’s Aid Society in an appeal brought by the mother who had lost her Crown Wardship trial. The Court of Appeal found there was no merit to the mother’s appeal.
Children and Family Services for York Region v. J.E., [2007] O.J. No. 3023 (Sup. Ct.) – Successfully represented mother in motion to set aside final minutes of settlement and final order which made her child a Crown Ward without access. The Court found that the mother signed the final minutes of settlement without understanding the nature and character of the document and set the agreement aside under Rule 59.06(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court further found that an order for Crown Wardship must be the result of an unimpeachable process and a complete understanding of the consequences of the agreement by the parties.
Children and Family Services for York Region v. J.E., [2007] O.J. No. 4409 (Sup. Ct.) – Successfully sought costs against the Children’s Aid Society despite the lack of presumption for costs in child protection cases. The Court found that the Society had acted unfairly by failing to provide the mother with continued access despite the fact that the minutes of settlement signed by all the parties referred to such access.
Wedig v. Gaukel, [2007] O.J. No. 2651 (C.A.) – Appeal brought on behalf of the appellant under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The Court of Appeal found that, due to omissions made by the appellant’s trial lawyer, they could not grant the appeal brought by the appellant and affirmed that the child had been wrongfully removed from the state of Florida.
Barrios v. Barrios, [2007] O.J. No. 3587 (Sup. Ct.) – Successfully argued that the Court should allow court documents prepared by the applicant to be redacted before being served on the respondent. The Court noted there was a real risk of harm to the applicant should the respondent be notified of the applicant’s whereabouts, and that the redaction was the the best interests of the child.