Ginette Alex Weisbord Williams

This decision addresses a request for costs brought by the father (K.D.) against the mother (P.D.) following a child protection trial.

The trial found the child in need of protection due to emotional harm caused by the mother, and custody was granted to the father.

The court applied Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, noting that the presumption of costs for a successful party does not apply in child protection cases.

While the mother's litigation conduct was deemed unreasonable and prolonged the trial, the court found it did not constitute "bad faith" under Rule 24(8) because her actions stemmed from a fixed belief related to a personality disorder, rather than an intent to inflict financial or emotional harm.

Consequently, the father was awarded partial indemnity costs, significantly less than the full recovery sought, reflecting the mother's unreasonable behaviour but not bad faith.

This is a child protection matter under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The court determined that two children were in need of protection and granted custody to their half-sister J.P. and her partner A.E. This decision addresses the form and terms of access between the mother G.P. and her two children.

The mother sought frequent unsupervised access with rapid expansion to overnight visits upon negative drug tests.

The custodial caregivers sought supervised access at their discretion until the mother addressed her addiction and mental health issues.

The court adopted a staged approach to access, beginning with semi-supervised visits in public locations and gradually expanding over time based on demonstrated consistency, sobriety, and cooperation between the parties.

Motion by the respondent mother to appoint the Office of the Children's Lawyer to represent the interests of her daughter in an ongoing child protection application.

The child has been the subject of a protection application since August 2016, with allegations of abuse by the father that have been investigated and found unsubstantiated by multiple professionals.

The matter involves high domestic conflict between the parents and is proceeding to trial.

The court appointed the Office of the Children's Lawyer to represent the child's interests, finding that legal representation is deemed desirable under section 78 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, given that the child is not permitted to be present at trial and the competing positions of the parents cannot adequately protect her interests.