Ayhan Bakar

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decisions of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $5,000 all inclusive.

The applicant mother filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to hear her concerns about her child's safety in the father's care and failed to provide reasons for its decisions.

The Board found that while the society did investigate the concerns, it failed to provide the mother with meaningful reasons for its conclusion that the child was safe.

The society incorrectly believed the mother was a non-custodial parent and therefore not entitled to the information.

The Board ordered the society to provide a detailed letter explaining its investigative actions.

The applicant brought a motion regarding the respondent children's aid society's disclosure in a service complaint proceeding under s. 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The applicant argued the respondent provided heavily redacted records without reasons or a copy of its disclosure policy.

The Board found the respondent failed to meet its disclosure obligations as set out in J.S. v. Windsor Essex Children’s Aid Society, noting the redactions were significant rather than minimal.

The Board ordered the respondent to provide amended disclosure, including removing redactions made on the mistaken belief that the applicant lacked custody of her child.

The applicant brought a motion seeking further financial disclosure from the respondent, specifically bank statements and cancelled cheques, in the context of a motion to change child support.

The applicant argued the disclosure was necessary to ascertain the respondent's true income, noting discrepancies between his hourly rate and reported income.

The court dismissed the motion for bank statements, finding the request disproportionate and akin to a fishing expedition, as the respondent was a unionized T4 employee with reasonable explanations for income fluctuations.

However, the court ordered the respondent to produce a more detailed employment letter.