2 total
Motion for production of children's medical records partially granted; gender-affirming care records held privileged.
The moving party father brought a motion for the production of his children's health and counselling records from four service providers, including records relating to one child's gender-affirming care.
The children, who were capable of consenting under the Personal Health Information Protection Act, refused consent.
The court dismissed the father's request under section 20(5) of the Children's Law Reform Act, finding broad disclosure was not in the children's best interests given the high-conflict separation and allegations of family violence.
Under Rule 19(11) of the Family Law Rules, the court ordered production of the reunification therapist's records and limited information about the children's enrollment in counselling.
However, the court found the individual counselling and gender-affirming care records were privileged under the Wigmore test and dismissed the motion for their production.
The court terminated support for a son but ordered retroactive support for a daughter.
The respondent brought a motion to change a 1999 child support order, seeking to terminate his obligation to support both children retroactively.
The applicant opposed the motion and sought a retroactive increase in support for both children, including section 7 expenses, and ongoing support for the adult child attending university.
The court found that the respondent's obligation to support his son terminated on July 1, 2009, when the son ceased full-time enrollment in an educational program.
The court ordered ongoing support for the daughter attending university using a hybrid approach combining table amounts and section 3(2)(b) calculations based on actual expenses.
The court granted a retroactive increase in support for the daughter from July 1, 2009 onward, but declined to award retroactive section 7 expenses for extracurricular activities.
