3 total
The court dismissed a mother's motions for specified access and disclosure of her estranged daughter's school records.
A mother sought specified access to her 15-year-old daughter and access to the daughter's school records.
The daughter, who had disclosed physical abuse by the mother and had run away from her care, consistently expressed that she did not wish to have contact with her mother.
The court dismissed both motions, finding that specified access was not in the child's best interests and that the child's school records were privileged under the Education Act and should not be disclosed.
The court emphasized the child's views and preferences, the mother's volatile and verbally abusive conduct, and the child's privacy interests.
Stay granted pending appeal to continue parental access with child.
The father brought a motion to stay a final order making the child a Crown ward without access pending appeal and sought ongoing disclosure of society records.
The court accepted that the disclosure request was consented to and focused on whether the final order should be stayed.
Applying the stay test from appellate authority, the court found there was a serious issue to be tried on appeal, and that maintaining supervised access pending the appeal would better serve the child’s best interests.
The court concluded that continuation of access would preserve the relationship while the appeal was pending and would not prejudice the child’s placement.
The motion to stay the order pending appeal was granted and access continued on the previous terms.
Motion for leave to appeal interim custody change denied; motion judge properly relied on OCL report.
The mother sought leave to appeal an interim order that transferred the primary residence of the child to the father.
The motion judge had relied heavily on a report from the Office of the Children's Lawyer, which raised serious concerns about the mother's mental health, specifically her schizophrenia and medication non-compliance.
The mother argued that the motion judge erred in relying on the untested report to change the status quo prior to trial.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the interim decision and noting that the case was fact-driven and did not raise matters of public importance warranting appellate review.
