Hélène C. Desormeau

The Children's Aid Society was involved with a special needs child who had been placed in the legal custody of a kin caregiver.

The sole issue at trial was the frequency of the mother's supervised access visits.

The mother sought weekly access, while the Society and the kin caregiver proposed access once every three weeks due to the child's fragile health, strict routine requirements, and the mother's history of inconsistent attendance and alcohol use.

Applying the best interests of the child test under the Child and Family Services Act, the court ordered supervised access once every three weeks for two hours, with strict conditions regarding the mother's sobriety and attendance.

Following a successful motion to change a final order regarding child support, the moving party sought costs of $14,188.62 on a partial indemnity scale.

The responding party argued for a reduced quantum of $4,000, citing her inability to pay and alleging unreasonable behaviour by the moving party.

The court found that the moving party was substantially successful and had behaved reasonably throughout the litigation.

Conversely, the court found the responding party behaved unreasonably by failing to make concessions despite clear evidence of a material change in circumstances and by involving the children in the litigation.

The court held that ability to pay is not a complete defence to a costs award and ordered the responding party to pay the full requested amount of $14,188.62.

Following a successful motion to change a final order, the applicant sought costs of $17,475.34.

The court found the applicant was the substantially successful party and had behaved reasonably, including making a reasonable offer to settle.

The respondent's behaviour was found to be unreasonable.

Applying the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $6,000.

The moving party father brought a motion to change a final order regarding child support and section 7 expenses, citing a significant decrease in income due to a back injury that prevented him from working as an electrician on tools.

The responding party mother opposed the motion, seeking to impute income to the father, arguing he was intentionally underemployed and hiding pre-tax corporate earnings, and requested a change to the access schedule.

The court found no material change in circumstances to warrant altering the shared custody schedule for the daughter, though it formalized the agreed-upon primary residence of the son with the mother.

The court found a material change in the father's financial circumstances due to his health and reasonable career change, declining to impute income or add pre-tax corporate earnings.

Child support was varied retroactively to the date the motion was served, applying a straight set-off under section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines, resulting in a finding that the father had overpaid child support and section 7 expenses.

The mother was ordered to repay the overpayment through monthly installments and a temporary suspension of the father's ongoing support obligations.

The mother brought a motion to change a final order regarding access and communication, and the father also sought variations.

The court found that the escalating, high-level conflict between the parents constituted a material change in circumstances.

To minimize the child's exposure to this conflict, the court ordered a strict, inflexible access schedule with detailed provisions for holidays, sick days, and clothing, and severely restricted communication between the parents.

Child support and proportional sharing of special expenses were also readjusted based on the parents' 2016 incomes.

The children's aid society brought a motion for temporary care and custody of a four-year-old child.

The society sought to have the child remain in the mother's care, subject to strict supervision by the maternal grandfather, due to allegations of physical abuse involving the mother's partner and another child.

The mother opposed the supervision order, while the father sought temporary custody.

The court found credible evidence that the child would be at risk of harm if left unsupervised with the mother or her partner.

The court granted the society's motion, ordering that the child remain with the mother under the grandfather's supervision, with the father having access every second weekend.