James H. Rayner

The applicant mother sought temporary spousal and child support.

The respondent father sought ongoing disclosure of the mother's income and job search efforts, and an order for the sharing of daycare costs.

The court imputed income to both parties, allowing a 50% deduction for rental expenses from gross rental income.

The mother established a prima facie case for spousal support based on compensatory and non-compensatory grounds due to income disparity and her role as primary caregiver.

The court ordered child support of $902 per month and spousal support of $600 per month, commencing January 1, 2021.

The father's cross-motion for disclosure and daycare sharing was consented to by the mother.

A temporary care and custody motion under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 concerning three children.

The Children's Aid Society sought placement of the children with their father, citing protection concerns related to the mother's partner's history of sexual offences against children and the mother's failure to protect the children from this risk.

The mother opposed the motion and sought return of the children to her care.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children were at risk of harm and that they could not be adequately protected through supervision orders while in the mother's care.

The court ordered temporary placement with the father, subject to Society supervision, with supervised access to the mother.

A paternal aunt sought to be added as a party to a child protection proceeding to pursue permanent custody of the youngest child, who had been placed in her care pursuant to an interim order.

The motion was opposed by all parties, including the child's father.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the aunt had provided appropriate care and had a viable plan, adding her as a party was premature, unnecessary to determine the issues, would unduly delay proceedings, and was not in the child's best interests at that stage of the protection application.

The court emphasized that the paramount purpose of the legislation is family reunification and that the aunt's change in position and manner of bringing the motion had created unnecessary conflict.

Two motions were heard by the respondents D.L. and T.S. in a child protection proceeding.

The first motion sought to vary the interim access order by increasing access to the children and permitting community visits.

The second motion sought an order prohibiting access by S.M.L.B. (the biological mother of one child) to J.L. The court found a material change in circumstances and granted a modest increase in access to D.L. and T.S., conditional on their participation in parenting programming.

The court rejected the motion to prohibit access by S.M.L.B., finding that supervised access was in the child's best interests and should continue.