Danica Maslov

The applicant father, Mr. Burton, sought to vary a 2011 parenting order to increase his parenting time with the child, River, by bringing a response to the respondent mother's motion to change child support.

The court conducted a focused hearing on whether there had been a material change in circumstances to allow a variation of the parenting schedule.

The court found that Mr. Burton successfully demonstrated a material change in circumstances, primarily due to his changed work schedule (no longer working night shifts), the child's increased age and stated desire to spend more time with the father, and the lack of holiday provisions in the original order.

This finding allows the court to proceed with a fresh inquiry into the child's best interests regarding the parenting regime.

The Children's Aid Society of Brant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking continued protection findings for the child T.E.H., an order for deemed custody to the paternal aunt L.H., specific access orders for the mother and siblings, no access for the mother's partner, and discretionary access for the father.

The court found T.E.H. to be in continuing need of protection due to risk of emotional harm.

It granted deemed custody to the paternal aunt, L.H., prioritizing the child's best interests and Indigenous cultural identity.

The court made temporary access orders for the mother and siblings, but declined to make a "no access" order for the mother's partner or a discretionary access order for the father, emphasizing the court's obligation to impose specific terms and conditions for access.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's finding of a material change in circumstances for a motion to change under the Family Law Rules.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the issue of material change was properly determined by summary judgment and that the factors (respondent's move, new partner, work schedule change) clearly constituted a material change under the Gordon and Goertz test, relevant to the children's best interests.

The respondent brought a motion to change a child support order, seeking termination of support for two children, Andrea and Alysha, on the basis that they were no longer in full-time post-secondary education.

The court confirmed no further child support obligation for Andrea.

For Alysha, child support was terminated effective September 1, 2020, as she was not enrolled in post-secondary education.

The respondent's request for future financial disclosure from the applicant regarding Alysha's potential future enrolment was granted.

The applicant's cross-motion to fix child support arrears was dismissed without prejudice, as it was deemed an issue for final determination, not a temporary motion, and the basis of the calculation was not adequately disclosed to the court or opposing counsel.

The applicant brought a motion to change regarding the respondent's access with their child, specifically seeking a final order prohibiting the respondent from driving with the child in his motor vehicle due to past incidents of impaired driving and alcohol misuse.

The court found the respondent's evidence regarding his alcohol consumption unreliable and noted his non-compliance with previous orders.

While acknowledging the risk to the child, the court determined that a blanket prohibition on driving would be overbroad and punitive.

Instead, a final order was issued restricting the respondent to transporting the child only when his blood alcohol concentration is zero and he is not impaired by any drug.

A Form 14b motion brought by Brant Family and Children's Services seeking a final order in accordance with an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The court found the child continues to be in need of protection and that placement with paternal grandparents is in the child's best interests.

However, the court rejected many of the proposed access terms as overly broad and not properly tailored to harm reduction.

The court modified the order to remove conditions requiring parents to complete programming and demonstrate sobriety as prerequisites to access, while maintaining supervision and a restriction on the father's residence in the grandparents' home.

The applicant sought a finding that the respondent stood in the place of a parent to one child (Sarah) and requested child support in the amount of $342.00 per month, as well as an order requiring the respondent to meet the children's medical needs.

The respondent sought temporary custody of his biological child (Olivia) or, alternatively, joint custody with primary residence.

The court found that the respondent stood in loco parentis to Sarah based on the Chartier factors, including his financial contributions, daily caregiving, representation as a parent, and the child's lack of relationship with her biological father.

However, the court ordered reduced interim child support of $200.00 per month rather than the guideline amount, given the lack of evidence regarding other financial resources available to the child.

The respondent's motion for custody or primary residence of Olivia was dismissed as not being in the child's best interests on an interim basis.