Cameron Robert Croxall

The applicant mother sought a parenting order and child support for their 22-month-old child in an uncontested trial.

The respondent father failed to file an Answer and did not attend the hearing, leading to a default.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, with the father's parenting time at the mother's discretion due to past issues.

The court imputed minimum wage income to the father for child support, rejecting the mother's higher speculative imputation, and ordered ongoing support and annual income disclosure.

No retroactive child support or costs were sought or awarded.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking expanded interim parenting time with the parties' 3.5-year-old child and the use of Our Family Wizard for communications.

The mother agreed to the communication app but disputed the father's request for unsupervised parenting time, proposing instead that visits be supervised by the paternal grandmother.

The court found that it was in the child's best interests to move the father's parenting time outside of the supervised exchange centre to allow for a more natural relationship to develop.

The court ordered unsupervised weekly visits, initially limited to two hours and then expanding to three hours, with exchanges to occur at the exchange centre.

This decision follows a two-day trial concerning custody and access for the parties' two children.

The father sought equal parenting time (50/50), while the mother sought joint custody with primary care to her and specific access for the father.

The court applied the "best interests of the child" test under the Children's Law Reform Act, giving particular consideration to the elder child's special needs for routine and stability.

The court found the mother better suited to meet the elder child's needs and ordered joint custody with primary residence to the mother, granting the father parenting time on alternating weekends and two mid-week evening visits.

The court also addressed the parents' communication issues, ordering the use of a communication program and emphasizing the need to avoid conflict in front of the children.

Child support and Section 7 expenses were also determined.

The applicant Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that two young children were in need of protection and an order for Crown wardship without access.

The respondent parents opposed the motion, with the mother seeking the return of the children under a supervision order and the father alleging the Society failed to properly explore a kin placement.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, noting the parents' failure to protect the children from neglect and domestic violence, the mother's failure to exercise reasonable access, and the father's lack of involvement.

The court granted the motion, finding the children in need of protection and ordering Crown wardship without access.

The Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order for Crown wardship without access for six children.

The children had been apprehended multiple times due to the mother's historic drug use, exposure to domestic violence, and deplorable housing conditions.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing she had a new stable relationship and a supervisory job.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the mother failed to demonstrate she had addressed the issues that led to the children's apprehension.

The court granted summary judgment, making all six children Crown wards without access to facilitate adoption.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking Crown wardship of four children who had been in care for over two years.

The mother and her common-law partner opposed the motion, arguing that they had made progress and could call witnesses to support their case.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a triable issue existed and emphasizing the need for caution before making a Crown wardship order.