Andrew J. Kania

The moving party father sought unsupervised overnight access to his six-year-old son, while the responding party mother brought a cross-motion for retroactive child support.

The court dismissed the mother's claim for retroactive support due to a lack of evidence regarding the father's income.

Regarding access, the court found that the mother was actively interfering with the father-son relationship and moving the goalposts for access.

The court ordered a staged access schedule, beginning with visits supervised by the paternal grandmother, and directed the parties to attend counselling.

The applicant brought a motion seeking an order disqualifying the respondent’s counsel due to a conflict of interest arising from a prior consultation with a lawyer from the same firm.

During the consultation, the applicant discussed confidential information regarding the contemplated family law dispute and provided a retainer before the conflict was discovered.

The firm attempted to implement a “Chinese wall” and asserted that no confidential information had been shared with the lawyer representing the respondent.

Applying the principles in MacDonald Estate v. Martin, the court held that undertakings alone were insufficient to rebut the presumption that confidential information could be shared within a firm.

Considering the duty of loyalty and the public interest in maintaining confidence in the administration of justice, the court concluded the firm must be disqualified from acting for the respondent.