Herman Turkstra

This decision concerns an urgent motion in a high-conflict family law proceeding regarding the care of a young child, L. The court granted the respondents' (L's mother and stepfather) motion to transfer primary care and decision-making responsibility for L to them, suspending the applicant grandmother's parenting time pending trial.

The decision details a history of unsubstantiated allegations of abuse, repeated medical and legal interventions, and the impact of ongoing litigation on the child.

The court found that the grandmother's actions were motivated by a desire to control the child and the parents, rather than genuine concern for L's safety, and that the child's best interests required immediate change in residence and decision-making authority.

The respondents (mother, stepfather, and father) brought a motion for a section 30 assessment under the Children's Law Reform Act, seeking psychological evaluations, which was opposed by the applicant grandmother.

The court declined the request for a section 30 assessment, citing concerns about cost, delay, and necessity given the existing record and the availability of a section 112 report from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL).

The court ordered the OCL to complete its section 112 report on an expedited basis and requested a priority trial for the parenting dispute.

Following the resolution of an application challenging a regulation after the respondents agreed to amend it, the court determined the appropriate quantum of costs payable to the applicants.

The applicants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing the litigation involved costs thrown away and abusive conduct by the respondents.

The court rejected both arguments, holding the matter resembled a typical settlement scenario and that the respondents had not acted unreasonably.

The court also rejected requests to exclude negotiation time and expert-related costs from the applicants’ bill of costs, but found the total amount claimed excessive.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court awarded reduced costs on a partial indemnity basis.

On a Rule 21 motion, several defendant chicken processors sought to strike portions of a statement of claim alleging damages arising from regulatory changes affecting interprovincial chicken supply.

The plaintiff alleged that industry participants and a marketing board conspired to eliminate its interprovincial supply business, contrary to the Competition Act and through intentional economic interference, conspiracy, and expropriation without compensation.

The court applied the “plain and obvious” test and held that most claims disclosed a reasonable cause of action and should proceed, including claims under s.45 and s.36 of the Competition Act, conspiracy, intentional interference with economic relations, and punitive damages.

However, references to “expropriated calculated base” and related pleading paragraphs were struck because the alleged property interest was not properly pleaded.

A reference to the Agreement on Internal Trade was also struck for inadequate identification, with leave to amend.