Birkin Culp

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion to permit her and the parties' 8-year-old child to travel to England and Scotland, and to dispense with the applicant father's consent.

The father brought a cross-motion seeking urgent orders for parenting time and declarations that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act supersedes the Divorce Act.

The court granted the mother's motion, finding the trip to be in the child's best interests and noting the father provided no valid reason for withholding consent.

The court dismissed the father's cross-motion as inappropriate for an urgent interim motion and adjourned the parenting issues to a case conference.

The father brought a motion for temporary joint custody and increased access to his two-year-old child pending an Office of the Children's Lawyer investigation.

The mother opposed the expanded access, citing concerns about the father's living arrangements, while the father raised concerns about the mother's work schedule and availability.

The court declined to make a temporary custody order but found it in the child's best interests to expand the father's access from Friday evening to Sunday afternoon.

Costs were awarded to the father on a partial indemnity basis.

The father brought a motion to change child support, and the mother responded with claims for section 7 expenses and summer child support for their adult child in university.

The court refused to impute rental income to the mother, finding she netted no income from the property.

The court ordered the father to pay his proportionate share of the younger child's gymnastics expenses, rejecting his claim of impecuniosity due to his frequent vacations.

The court also ordered the father to pay table child support during the summer months when the adult child resides with the mother, finding the usual approach inappropriate for the school year but applicable during the summer break.

The appellant mother appealed a trial decision making two of her children Crown wards without access and granting custody of her third child, who has Down syndrome, to the biological father without access to the mother.

The mother argued the trial judge erred in assessing evidence, including child hearsay and medical evidence, and in denying her access.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence, credibility findings, or determination that access was not in the children's best interests given the mother's history of physical discipline, lack of insight, and failure to address the children's needs.

Appeals were brought from a child protection disposition order granting Crown wardship with no access.

The mother appealed the denial of access to three of her children, and the Office of the Children’s Lawyer appealed on behalf of the children seeking access between the children and their mother and between siblings.

The court found the trial judge misstated the legal test by referring to access rather than the relationship being “beneficial and meaningful,” but held the error did not affect the outcome because the evidentiary record did not establish a beneficial and meaningful relationship as required by s. 59(2.1) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The court further held that access would impair adoption opportunities.

The appeals were dismissed and Crown wardship with no access was confirmed.