F. McFarlane

The maternal grandmother moved to be added as a party to a child protection proceeding involving her 20-month-old granddaughter.

The child's parents supported the grandmother's plan of care but were not in a position to care for the child themselves.

The Society opposed the motion, arguing it would cause delay and was unnecessary since the parents could advocate for the grandmother's plan.

The court granted the motion, finding that the grandmother had a legal interest in the case under the Child and Family Services Act and that her independent advocacy was in the child's best interests.

In a family law motion arising from minutes of settlement concerning custody and access, the applicant sought an order compelling the respondent to sign a parenting coordination agreement with a named parenting coordinator.

The court found the evidentiary record deficient because the proposed agreement was not filed and there was insufficient evidence that the respondent was in default of any obligation to execute it.

The court also held that an earlier order already implicitly required the parties to complete the documentation necessary to retain the parenting coordinator.

Rather than duplicating the order, enforcement remedies under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules were available if non-compliance occurred.

The motion was therefore dismissed.