Brent Christopher Balmer

The applicant sought an urgent interim order prohibiting a funeral home from releasing the deceased's remains pending the resolution of an estate dispute.

The matter was reviewed by a triage judge under the COVID-19 protocol to determine urgency.

The court found that the matter was not urgent and declined to hear the motion before the resumption of regular court operations.

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.

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.