3 total
Moving party declared a special party due to incapacity; OPGT appointed as litigation guardian.
The moving party's counsel brought an uncontested motion to have the moving party declared a 'special party' under the Family Law Rules and to appoint the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee (OPGT) as his litigation guardian.
Medical and capacity assessments demonstrated that the moving party suffered from severe cognitive impairments and was incapable of instructing counsel.
The court found the moving party to be a special party and, noting the absence of any other appropriate representative, appointed the OPGT to represent him in the ongoing family law proceedings.
Mother awarded $15,000 in costs against father for urgent motion to enforce parenting order in child protection case.
Following the settlement of a child protection proceeding, the respondent mother sought costs of $352,066.02 from the respondent father.
The mother argued the father acted unreasonably, necessitating an urgent motion mid-trial to enforce a parenting order after he failed to return the children.
The court noted that while costs are rarely awarded between parents in child protection matters, the father's breach of the court order justified a costs award for the urgent motion.
The court awarded the mother $15,000 in costs for the motion but declined to award costs for the entire proceeding, as the trial was not completed and there was insufficient evidence of bad faith to justify full costs.
The court ordered the return of the children to their mother with police enforcement and restricted the father to supervised access due to his failure to comply with prior orders.
The Respondent mother brought an urgent motion to enforce a prior order for the children's primary residence, add a police enforcement clause, and vary the father's access to be supervised or suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The father opposed, arguing the children wished to reside with him.
The Children's Aid Society (CAS) also sought to admit fresh evidence (surreptitious recordings) which was dismissed by the court.
The court found the father in breach of prior orders and that his actions empowered the children to disregard court orders.
The court granted the mother's motion, ordering the children's return to her care, adding a police enforcement clause, and mandating supervised access for the father, giving little weight to the children's stated preferences due to parental influence.
