Dr. Rex Collins

The appellant father appealed a summary judgment order finding his two children in need of protection and placing them in the sole custody of the mother.

The father, who had not seen the children in over four years, alleged widespread misconduct by judges, lawyers, and social workers, but failed to file responding evidence on the summary judgment motion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law or palpable and overriding errors of fact in the motion judge's decision, and upheld the refusal to grant an adjournment.

The mother brought a motion to change seeking unsupervised access to her three children.

Her access had previously been suspended due to severe parental alienation and non-compliance with court orders, including a failure to complete the Family Bridges reunification program.

The court found that the mother had not demonstrated a material change in circumstances, as she continued to engage in alienating behaviours, pursued a campaign against the reunification professionals, and failed to meaningfully engage in ordered therapy.

The court declined to exercise further access jurisdiction over the eldest child, who was 17.5 years old, and dismissed the mother's motion for access to the younger two children until she fully complies with all court orders.

The applicant mother and respondent father both sought sole custody of their 13-year-old son.

The child had been living primarily with the father and paternal grandparents since separation.

A Section 30 assessment recommended shared parenting or sole custody to the mother if the father did not move away from his parents, but the court found the assessors favoured the mother.

Following a judicial interview where the child expressed a strong preference to live with his father and fear of his mother, and considering the father's ability to provide a stable environment, the court awarded sole custody to the father.

The mother was granted access every other weekend, with overnight visits conditional on OCL approval of sleeping arrangements, and both parties were ordered to attend counselling.

The applicant father brought a motion for sole custody of the parties' two children, relying on a section 30 assessment that found the respondent mother was severely alienating the children.

The assessor testified that the mother's influence caused parentification, insecure attachment, and a shared delusion, including false allegations of abuse against the father.

Finding this to be an exceptional case where the assessor's recommendations must be acted upon immediately to prevent grave psychological harm, the court granted the father temporary sole custody, ordered no contact between the mother and children, and terminated the father's child support obligations.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Director of Adoption Services to place their international adoption on hold.

The hold was initiated after the estranged sister of one of the applicants made historic sexual abuse allegations just days before the applicants were scheduled to travel to finalize the adoption.

The Director placed the hold and required a new home study without providing the applicants an opportunity to respond or detailing the allegations.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that the Director breached procedural fairness by failing to give the applicants a meaningful opportunity to respond.

The court also found the requirement for a further home study unreasonable given the unchallenged expert evidence refuting the risk.

The Director's decision was quashed and the original approval was reinstated.