Eric M. Vallillee

The respondent brought a motion seeking an order under s.13(1) of the Children’s Law Reform Act declaring he is not the parent of the applicant's child, and for summary judgment dismissing the applicant's claims for child support.

The respondent relied on two negative DNA test results.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the DNA test reports were inadmissible as evidence because they were not introduced pursuant to a court order under s.17.2(1) of the CLRA, nor were they accompanied by an affidavit from the expert who prepared them, or compliance with the Family Law Rules regarding expert opinion evidence (e.g., expert qualifications or acknowledgement of duty).

The dismissal was without prejudice, allowing the respondent to bring a further motion with proper evidence.

The Children's Aid Society initiated a Status Review Application concerning two children, S.W. (17) and S.H. (6), who were previously under a supervision order with their mother.

The Society sought termination of the order for S.W. and extended society care (later custody to kin) for S.H. The mother and S.H.'s father opposed, seeking return of the children.

The court found both children remained in need of protection due to the parents' persistent instability, mental health issues, and lack of engagement.

It ordered the termination of the order for S.W. (who was doing well with paternal family in New Brunswick) and granted custody of S.H. to the kin caregivers (L.B. and Q.B.) in New Brunswick, with incidental orders for access and authority to obtain identification without parental consent.

The parties brought competing motions for interim relief regarding parenting time, child and spousal support, and the sale of the jointly-owned family home.

The court ordered that the father's parenting time with the daughter remain subject to her wishes due to trauma from witnessing domestic violence, but granted in-person and virtual parenting time with the son.

The court imputed $30,000 in partnership income to the father due to inadequate financial disclosure, fixing his income at $120,000, and ordered him to pay interim child and spousal support.

The court also directed that the family home be listed for sale by July 2022.

The applicant sought costs of $3,272.91 following a successful motion regarding a parenting schedule.

The respondent argued that no costs should be awarded due to her limited financial means, or alternatively, costs should be fixed at $500.

The court found that the applicant was the successful party, had made reasonable offers to settle, and that the respondent's failure to respond to settlement efforts was unreasonable.

After deducting time entries unrelated to the motion and considering the respondent's ability to pay, the court ordered the respondent to pay costs of $2,000.

The applicant sought an interim restraining order against a respondent, Christopher Lee Sommerville, under the Children's Law Reform Act, alleging sexual abuse of children and criminal ties.

The court dismissed the request for a restraining order, finding insufficient evidence to establish reasonable grounds for fear for safety.

However, the court, in the children's best interests, issued a contact order under s. 28(1)(c)(i) of the Act, prohibiting the respondent from direct or indirect contact with the children or the applicant, while an investigation by the Children's Aid Society was ongoing.

The applicant mother brought a motion for the return of the parties' six-year-old child from the respondent father in Nova Scotia to her care in Ontario.

The father had retained the child after a summer visit, citing concerns about the mother's new partner, who had a criminal record and history of substance abuse.

Following a previous interim order requiring evidence of the new partner's rehabilitation, the court reviewed the new evidence, which demonstrated the partner's prosocial behavior, sobriety, and positive relationship with the child.

The court found that the minimal risk of relapse was outweighed by the benefit of returning the child to his primary caregiver and ordered the child returned to the mother's care.