Birkin James Culp

The responding party brought a motion for temporary relief pending trial in a family law dispute concerning child support and extraordinary expenses.

The court continued a prior order preventing enforcement of extraordinary expenses through the Family Responsibility Office, finding that the conflicting affidavit evidence regarding the amount and apportionment of those expenses created issues requiring trial.

The court also adjusted the payor’s guideline child support based on confirmed income figures, ordering retroactive support based on a 2011–2012 income of $44,850 and prospective support based on a 2013 income of $48,464.

The court further authorized questioning sessions in light of the triable issues and declined to make a costs order given the divided success on the motion.

The appellant appealed an Ontario Court of Justice decision dismissing her motion to be added as a party to child protection proceedings involving six children who had been made Crown wards.

The appellant sought participation in order to propose a kinship placement plan, arguing that the motion judge improperly relied on conflict with the Children’s Aid Society and failed to properly consider her suitability and the feasibility of a home study.

The court applied the deferential appellate standard for factual and discretionary decisions in family and child protection matters, emphasizing that appellate intervention requires a palpable and overriding error.

The evidence supported the motion judge’s concerns about the appellant’s lack of cooperation with the Society, incomplete background checks, and the likelihood that adding her as a party would unduly delay proceedings affecting the children’s stability.

Finding no palpable and overriding error, the court dismissed the appeal.

A custody and access trial involving two young children born to unmarried parents who cohabited at the paternal grandparents' home before separating in January 2011.

The father sought sole custody with alternate weekend access to the mother; the mother sought sole custody with specific weekly access and child support from the father.

The court awarded sole custody to the father based on his more stable lifestyle, superior parenting regime, and demonstrated commitment to the children's welfare, while granting the mother significant access on alternate weekends and holidays.

The court found that the father's structured parenting approach was more beneficial than the mother's less supervised approach, and that the children responded better behaviorally in the father's care.

The court terminated the father's child support obligation as of September 1, 2012.