Chantel E. Carvallo

In a child protection proceeding involving four children, a non-party community member brought a motion to be added as a party to put forward a plan of care.

The Children's Aid Society did not consent but did not oppose the motion.

Applying the five-part test from Highland Shores CAS, the court found that the non-party had a legal interest, was capable of putting forward a plan of care, and that her addition was necessary to determine the issues and in the children's best interests.

The motion was granted and the non-party was added as a respondent.

The court heard two openness applications regarding a young child with special needs who was placed for adoption.

The birth father sought monthly in-person contact, while the Office of the Children's Lawyer and the Children's Aid Society supported two visits per year.

The court considered the child's best interests, the need for stability in the adoptive home, and the adoptive parents' ability to comply with the order.

The court ordered a minimum of three in-person openness contacts per year between the child and the birth father, which may include the paternal grandmother.

Following dismissal of a motion seeking to dispense with a biological father’s consent to a step-parent adoption under s. 138 of the Child and Family Services Act, the successful respondent sought costs.

The court confirmed the presumptive entitlement of the successful party to costs under the Family Law Rules and the discretionary authority under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act.

While the respondent claimed over $25,000 in legal fees, the court found the matter was narrow and not complex and reduced the recoverable amount after considering duplication of work caused by a change of counsel, excessive docketing practices, and clerical tasks billed as legal work.

The court also considered the unsuccessful applicant’s limited financial means and the need to avoid negative financial impact on the child.

Costs of $3,400 inclusive of disbursements and tax were awarded, payable in monthly installments.

The applicant step-father sought an order dispensing with the biological father's consent to the adoption of a four-year-old child.

The biological father had been absent from the child's life since birth due to living in Morocco, but had paid child support and recently sought access upon returning to Canada.

The court found that dispensing with consent was not in the child's best interests, as the biological father had shown a commitment to the child and there was no evidence he posed a harm or negative influence.