Brent Balmer

The parties, who share equal parenting time and joint decision-making for their four-year-old daughter, could not agree on which public school she should attend.

The applicant mother sought to enroll the child at a school near her home, while the respondent father sought a school near his home.

The court determined that it was in the child's best interests to attend the school near the applicant's home, as it would allow the applicant greater flexibility to secure employment and facilitate the involvement of the child's extended maternal family in before and after-school care.

The mother brought a motion in a child protection proceeding seeking a temporary order to place the child with former kin caregivers.

The child had been placed with the father, but the father was recently incarcerated and denied bail.

The children's aid society sought to keep the child in the care of the father's partner.

Applying the augmented best interests test for an Indigenous child, the court found that placement with the kin caregivers was more stable and in the child's best interests, despite historical concerns regarding the kin's ability to foster the child's cultural identity, which could be mitigated through supervision and education.

The parties sought costs following a family law trial regarding parenting and child support issues.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of nearly $170,000, while the respondent sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $2,500.

The court reviewed the parties' offers to settle and found that there was mixed success at trial.

The court also noted that both parties had conducted the litigation unreasonably, allowing personal conflict to dominate and incurring disproportionate legal expenses for relatively straightforward issues.

Consequently, the court declined to award costs to either party, ordering each to bear their own costs.

The parties made written submissions regarding the costs of the respondent's successful motion to set aside a default order.

The applicant sought costs of the motion on a partial indemnity basis, arguing that the respondent's default necessitated the motion.

The respondent argued no costs should be awarded or they should be in the cause.

The court found the applicant acted reasonably throughout and that setting aside the default order was an indulgence to the respondent.

The court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's costs of the motion fixed at $3,911.28.

The Children's Aid Society brought a child protection application regarding a 7-year-old child.

The court found the mother lacked credibility regarding her severe substance abuse issues, domestic violence instigation, and failure to comply with court orders, including driving while prohibited.

The court found the child to be in need of protection due to the risk of physical and emotional harm from the mother.

The child was ordered to remain in the care of the father for six months under CAS supervision, with the mother granted specified supervised access.

The applicant society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order to place the child in extended Society care.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking the return of the child under a supervision order.

Relying on expert evidence that the mother lacked the capacity to safely parent the child full-time due to a psychological disorder, the court found no genuine issue for trial.

The court granted the summary judgment, placing the child in extended Society care, but ordered that the mother, sibling, and maternal grandparents have a right of access to the child.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion seeking to enroll the parties' two children in in-person school, contrary to the applicant mother's unilateral decision to enroll them in virtual learning.

The court granted leave to hear the motion prior to a case conference due to the impasse between the joint custodial parents.

Applying the best interests of the child test in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the court found that the risk of the virus to the healthy children was extremely low and ordered that they attend school in person.

The children's aid society brought a motion within a status review application to vacate a previous statutory finding that a child in extended society care was not a First Nations child.

The society sought a new finding that the child is a First Nations child based on new evidence of the paternal aunt's self-identification as Indigenous.

The foster parents and maternal grandfather opposed the motion, arguing the previous finding could not be varied.

The court held that a child's identity is fluid and can be revisited on a status review application if new evidence arises and it is in the child's best interests.

The court accepted the paternal aunt's self-identification and declared the child a First Nations child under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to find two children in need of protection and to place them with their respective fathers.

The mother, who suffers from severe and chronic mental health issues, did not respond to the motion.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, and ordered the children placed with their fathers.

The court declined the society's request to delegate access discretion to the fathers, holding that a court cannot delegate its statutory duty to determine access based on the best interests of the children, and instead ordered supervised access with specific parameters.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment to place three children with their father under a six-month supervision order, with the mother's access to be supervised at the Society's discretion.

The father consented, and the mother did not actively oppose the motion.

The court applied the test for summary judgment in child protection proceedings, screened the evidence for admissibility (including business records and children's hearsay statements), and found no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court concluded that the children continued to be in need of protection and that the proposed order was in their best interests.