Emily Van Looyen

The applicant mother sought summary judgment for child support, arguing the respondent father was intentionally under-employed or unemployed and failed to provide financial disclosure.

The court imputed minimum wage income to the father, finding he was intentionally unemployed and capable of working full-time.

Child support was ordered based on this imputed income, with section 7 expenses shared equally.

The mother's request for retroactive support was denied to prevent immediate default.

This is a motion to dismiss a child protection application for want of jurisdiction.

The respondent parents challenged whether the court retained jurisdiction to hear the protection application following alleged failures by the Children's Aid Society to comply with statutory prerequisites for removal of children to a place of safety.

The parents argued that two removals—on April 30, 2018 and June 1, 2018—were warrantless removals without proper grounds and that the Society failed to bring the matter to court within the required five-day statutory period.

The court found that while the April 30 removal lacked proper consent and statutory authority, the children were returned to parental care on May 15, 2018, creating a discrete event.

The June 1 removal was brought to court within the statutory timeframe and was supported by exigent circumstances.

The court dismissed the motion to dismiss, finding jurisdiction was retained.