Anita Kain

The Applicant sought a temporary order for the children of the marriage to be placed in his care for 90 days, with no contact with the Respondent except as directed by a therapist, alleging parental alienation.

The Respondent opposed the motion.

The court considered whether the "material change in circumstances" test applied to a variation of a temporary, without prejudice order, ultimately accepting for the motion's purpose that the Applicant only needed to demonstrate the order was in the children's best interests.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the Applicant had not provided sufficient clear evidence, particularly noting issues with the admissibility and weight of the counsellor's reports as expert evidence without proper voir dire and cross-examination.

Paternal grandparents sought to be added as parties to child protection proceedings under Rule 7(5) of the Family Law Rules and section 39(3) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The children were apprehended due to unexplained injuries sustained by the younger child while in parental care.

The court applied the five-factor test from Children's Aid Society of London and Middlesex v. H(S) and denied the motion.

While the grandparents had a legal interest in the matter, the court found that adding them as parties was not required in the children's best interests, would not unduly delay proceedings, was not necessary to determine the issues, and critically, the grandparents could not present a viable plan as they remained part of the criminal investigation into the child's injuries.

The grandparents also failed to meet the threshold requirement of section 39(3) as they had not continuously cared for the children in the six months preceding the hearing.

The appellant appealed an arbitration award determining retroactive and prospective child support and costs following a dispute arising from a separation agreement.

The arbitrator had found that the payor parent failed to provide adequate financial disclosure and imputed substantial income based on corporate earnings, discretionary expenses, and adverse inferences under the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The arbitrator ordered retroactive child support back to 2009 and prospective support based on table amounts, together with significant arbitration costs.

The court held that the arbitrator committed no reviewable error in interpreting the separation agreement, imputing income, attributing corporate pre‑tax income, or awarding retroactive support, and deferred to the arbitrator’s factual and credibility findings.

However, the court found the arbitrator’s reasoning on costs insufficient and reduced the costs award.

Following an urgent family law motion in which the applicant successfully obtained an order requiring the respondent to release the child for return to the United Kingdom pursuant to an earlier court endorsement, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The applicant sought costs on a full indemnity basis under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules, alleging the respondent acted in bad faith by refusing to comply with the prior order.

The court held that although the respondent intentionally breached the earlier endorsement, the breach was motivated by the child’s stated wish not to return to the United Kingdom and did not constitute bad faith.

Applying the factors under Rule 24(11), the court awarded partial indemnity costs to the successful applicant.