Frances M. Wood

The respondent on a motion to change brought an interim motion seeking retroactive child support from 2020 through 2025 and an order compelling the applicant father to finalize the divorce.

The court held that despite the general discouragement of interim motions within motions to change, the threshold was met where the material facts regarding the child's residence and the parties' incomes were largely undisputed.

Interim child support orders were made for 2021 through 2025 based on Line 15000 incomes, without prejudice to the final hearing.

The court also ordered the father to proceed with the divorce within 30 days, finding no legal disadvantage warranting delay and rejecting the argument that the divorce should await resolution of overpayment claims.

A children's aid society brought a child protection application under the CYFSA.

During argument on a temporary care and custody motion, a dispute arose about whether the child should be found to be a First Nations child under Ontario Regulation 155/18.

Although the child did not self-identify and neither parent identified the child as Indigenous, the child's half-sibling and that sibling's biological father self-identified as First Nations.

The court adopted a broad, purposive interpretation of the regulation and found that section 1(c)(i) applied, holding that the self-identification of a half-sibling was sufficient to establish the child as a First Nations child for the purposes of the CYFSA, engaging the Federal Act's placement priority provisions.

The temporary care and custody hearing was adjourned for further argument.

A trial concerning child and spousal support following the separation of a long-term marriage.

The primary issues involved imputing income to both parties.

The respondent husband was employed by Canada Post until his discharge in 2020, after which he operated a courier business and subsequently worked for Ford Canada before ceasing employment.

The applicant wife had been out of the workforce for approximately 20 years at separation and subsequently received Ontario Works and ODSP benefits.

The court imputed income to the respondent for child support purposes and determined that the applicant was entitled to spousal support on both compensatory and non-compensatory bases at the mid-range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

This decision concerns an application by J.D.S. to adopt A.A., a child with complex medical and developmental needs, and the subsequent motion by P.E., the biological father, to withdraw his previously given consent to the adoption.

The court reviews the statutory framework under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and applies the best interests of the child test.

The court finds that P.E. had capacity and was fully informed when he gave consent, and that his later dissatisfaction with parenting time arrangements does not vitiate that consent.

The court concludes that it is not in A.A.'s best interests to permit P.E. to withdraw his consent, given her strong bond with J.D.S. and her siblings, her special needs, and the lack of insight or planning by P.E. regarding her care.

The Openness Agreement remains in effect, and the parties are ordered to communicate via a parenting app.