Brent Christopher Balmer

This decision concerns an application by J.D.S. to adopt A.A., a child with complex medical and developmental needs, and the subsequent motion by P.E., the biological father, to withdraw his previously given consent to the adoption.

The court reviews the statutory framework under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and applies the best interests of the child test.

The court finds that P.E. had capacity and was fully informed when he gave consent, and that his later dissatisfaction with parenting time arrangements does not vitiate that consent.

The court concludes that it is not in A.A.'s best interests to permit P.E. to withdraw his consent, given her strong bond with J.D.S. and her siblings, her special needs, and the lack of insight or planning by P.E. regarding her care.

The Openness Agreement remains in effect, and the parties are ordered to communicate via a parenting app.

This costs endorsement follows a 13.5-day trial in a family law matter.

The court considered the parties’ submissions on costs, the divided success at trial, and the reasonableness of offers to settle.

The court applied the Family Law Rules and relevant case law, ultimately ordering the respondent, Mr. Elliott, to pay the applicant, Ms. Churchill, $15,000 in costs.

This decision addresses two Applications for Openness brought by the Office of the Children's Lawyer on behalf of two Metis children placed for adoption with their younger siblings.

The court considered the best interests of the children, the meaningfulness and benefit of ongoing contact with birth parents, and the importance of cultural connection under both the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA) and the Federal Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children.

The court balanced the children's strong desire for contact and cultural connection against the risks posed by the birth parents' aggressive and disruptive behavior, particularly the father's history of threats and criminal charges.

The final openness order permits indirect contact through annual updates and messages, with strict conditions to protect the adoptive placement's stability and safety.

This decision addresses a high-conflict family law dispute involving decision-making responsibility, parenting time, child support, and spousal support between Katherine Churchill and Christopher David Elliott.

The court considered the best interests of the children, the credibility of the parties, and the recommendations of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL).

The court ordered a week-about parenting schedule for N.E., parallel decision-making (with Mr. Elliott responsible for health and Ms. Churchill for dental and extracurriculars), and set child support obligations.

The court declined to set aside the separation agreement for spousal support due to insufficient pleadings and evidence.

The OCL’s recommendations were not followed due to concerns about neutrality and methodology.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from the dismissal of the applicant mother's motion for interim changes to parenting arrangements, including primary residence, schooling, decision-making authority, and child support, just three months before a scheduled 10-day trial.

The court found the mother's motion lacked evidence and justification for such significant changes to a long-standing status quo.

Despite the mother's financial circumstances, the court ordered her to pay the respondent father $14,000.00 in costs, emphasizing that litigants are responsible for the choices they make and the expenses they create, particularly when pursuing unreasonable claims, and that impecuniosity does not shield a party from costs liability.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking an interim order to change the primary residence and school of her eight-year-old son, Nathan, from the father to her.

This motion was brought despite a 10-day trial on the same issue being scheduled in three months.

The child had been primarily residing with the father for two years following serious mental health issues in the mother's household.

The mother argued the father engaged in "self-help" by not returning the child and sought to rely on certain factual findings from an OCL report.

The court dismissed the mother's motion, finding insufficient compelling evidence to justify disrupting the two-year status quo, especially given the imminent trial where all evidence could be fully tested.

The decision emphasized the child's need for stability and the importance of maintaining a successful status quo in interim parenting orders.

The Children's Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo was ordered to pay costs to the respondent mother, J.P., following a successful motion by the mother for child placement.

While the Society's position on the underlying motion was deemed reasonable, the court found several procedural failings on its part, including inadequate information gathering regarding the father's incarceration, improper delegation of decision-making to another CAS, insufficient assessment of the proposed placement plan, and failure to disclose the father's partner's child protection involvement.

These failings were deemed "patently unfair and indefensible," justifying the costs award.

This divorce proceeding focused on decision-making responsibility and parenting time for the child, K.P.K., born in 2017, with property and support issues having been resolved.

The court granted joint decision-making for most areas, but awarded sole decision-making to the mother for health care, specifically regarding COVID-19 vaccination, after consultation with the father.

The existing parenting schedule, where the child primarily resides with the mother and spends regular time with the father, will continue.

However, an equal parenting time schedule will be implemented if the father relocates to the mother's community.

The father was ordered to pay child support based on the current schedule, which will terminate upon the implementation of the equal parenting schedule.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following the respondent's unsuccessful motion to change child support.

The applicant, who successfully resisted the motion, sought costs.

The court considered the principles of costs, including Rule 24, Rule 18, proportionality, and the impact of settlement offers.

While some costs for earlier conferences were disallowed due to lack of timely request, the court ultimately awarded the applicant $4,000.00 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable forthwith by the respondent, and declared them enforceable by the Director of F.R.O. as support-related expenses.

The Respondent Father brought a motion to change his child support obligations for two adult children, Jamie Lee Duesling and Damya Skye Duesling, as ordered in 2008.

The Applicant Mother brought responding motions, which were dismissed without costs.

The court addressed the father's significant child support arrears and his contribution to the children's post-secondary education expenses (s.7 expenses), noting his increased income since the original order and his evasion of obligations.

The court declined to apply the D.B.S. guideline of 3 years for retroactive support and also declined to adjust the basic guideline support amount despite the rationale in Park v. Thompson, citing the father's "support holiday." The father was ordered to pay substantial arrears of guideline child support and one-third of the children's s.7 education expenses forthwith, and ongoing child support for the younger child.