Donald William Kilpatrick

The Children’s Aid Society brought a status review application seeking extended society care for two children, E.P. and M.P., who had been in temporary care for approximately 1100 days.

The mother, father, and maternal grandmother (respondents) opposed this, proposing the children be returned to their care subject to Society supervision.

The court found the children continued to be in need of protection due to the respondents' ongoing addiction and mental health issues.

After evaluating all plans of care, the court determined that extended society care was in the children's best interests, given their complex behavioural and educational needs, tumultuous placement history, and the respondents' fragile recovery and inability to provide sustained safe care.

Access for all respondents was ordered to continue at the Society's discretion, subject to the children's wishes.

The applicants, Rebekka Weigand and Jonathan Weigand, sought leave to bring an application under the Succession Law Reform Act (SLRA) to claim adequate provision from their deceased father's estate, requiring an extension of the limitation period.

The respondent, the estate trustee and sole beneficiary, opposed the extension, arguing delay and prior payment of child support.

The court found that the limitation period for Rebekka, a minor at the time of death, had not expired until six months after she turned 18.

Despite conflicting evidence regarding alleged misrepresentations by the respondent that caused the delay and the prior payment of $30,702.27 for child support, the court granted the extension.

The court emphasized that the question of adequate provision and the impact of the prior payment were matters for the main application, and that denying leave due to alleged misrepresentation by the sole beneficiary would be unconscionable.

The applicant brought a motion seeking dismissal of the respondent’s motion to change a final family law order due to the respondent’s persistent failure to comply with financial disclosure obligations.

The respondent sought a reduction of child support based on alleged reduced income but failed to produce tax returns, notices of assessment, or corporate financial statements despite a court order requiring disclosure.

Applying Family Law Rules 1(8) and 14(23), the court found the respondent had a long history of non‑compliance and provided inadequate explanations for failing to produce critical financial documents.

The court held the respondent had not met the onus of showing why the sanction under rule 14(23) should not apply.

The motion to change was dismissed, though the court confirmed termination of support for two adult children and fixed spousal support at zero.