David Godard

A grandmother appealed an interim family court order granting custody of three children to their mother and establishing an access regime.

The appellant argued that the trial judge failed to properly consider the children’s best interests, their views and preferences, and the recommendations of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, and erred by allowing viva voce evidence from the OCL investigator.

The court applied the deferential appellate standard for custody and access decisions and found no material error, misapprehension of evidence, or error in law.

The trial judge had carefully considered the statutory best‑interests factors under the Children’s Law Reform Act and the children’s views while assessing the parties’ parenting abilities and family dynamics.

The appeal was dismissed and the custody order granting the mother primary care of the children was upheld.

The applicant sought child support, including section 7 expenses, for two special needs children.

One child resided full-time in a group home, while the other resided with the applicant.

The court found that the parties' 2006 Separation Agreement contained 'special provisions' that benefited the children, allowing a deviation from the Child Support Guidelines.

The respondent was ordered to pay $600 monthly and 50% of section 7 expenses as per the agreement.

The court declined to order contribution for stem cell treatments outside Canada, finding them medically unsupported and financially unreasonable for the parties.

The respondent's claim for property sale proceeds was dismissed as statute-barred.