Jennifer Kirshen

In a high-conflict family proceeding involving allegations of child abuse, the respondent father brought a motion for the disclosure of various non-party records, including child protection files, medical and counselling records, and the Crown brief from his ongoing criminal prosecution.

The court applied the Wigmore test and Rule 19(11) of the Family Law Rules.

The court ordered the disclosure of the child protection investigation file and the mother's mental health records, finding them relevant to the parenting issues.

However, the court dismissed the request for the children's therapeutic and medical records, finding they were protected by case-by-case privilege.

The court also declined to order the disclosure of the Crown brief to protect the integrity of the ongoing criminal prosecution.

The respondent husband brought a motion for equal regular parenting time and holiday time, while the applicant wife brought a cross-motion seeking a different parenting schedule and retroactive child support.

The parties had previously entered into a separation agreement providing for joint custody and liberal access for the husband, which had been gradually expanded.

The court dismissed the husband's motion for equal parenting time, finding that he failed to establish a pre-separation shared parenting status quo or explain why the current arrangement should be altered on an interim basis, and instead granted the wife's proposed schedule.

The court also granted the wife's request for retroactive child support based on the husband's full income, including overtime, effective October 1, 2020.

The applicants, foster parents to three young children, applied to adopt them.

The adoption process was halted and the respondent Society decided to remove the children and refuse the adoption application after the foster father disclosed a historical incident of sexual abuse from when he was 20 years old.

The foster father moved out of the home, underwent a sexual offender risk assessment which found him to be at low risk, and engaged in counselling.

The Child and Family Services Review Board rescinded the Society's decisions, finding that the risk of harm from breaking the children's strong attachments to the applicants outweighed the low risk of future abuse, and ordered that the adoption homestudy proceed.