Jenn M. McMillan

The applicant mother brought a motion requesting the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) or a section 112 assessment for the child.

The respondent father brought cross-motions for security for costs and a mental health assessment of the applicant.

The court dismissed the request for OCL involvement, finding it would not be in the child's best interests and would draw her back into the parents' high-conflict dynamic.

The court also dismissed the request for a mental health assessment, finding insufficient evidence of a clinical issue impairing parenting capacity.

The court granted the respondent's motion for security for costs in part, ordering the applicant to post $8,700 (representing outstanding costs awards) within 60 days of the determination of her pending spousal support claim.

The court considered two motions in a family property dispute: (1) a motion to strike paragraphs from a statement of defence, and (2) a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration of beneficial ownership of real property, or, in the alternative, damages.

The court struck one paragraph with leave to amend and another without leave, and dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding genuine issues of material fact requiring a trial, particularly regarding the parties' intentions and credibility.

The court made further orders to preserve the status quo and directed that the trial of this action be heard together with related matrimonial proceedings.

Following a prior decision released August 19, 2015, the court addressed the issue of costs.

After reviewing written submissions from both parties, the court determined that the successful applicant was entitled to a costs award.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs fixed in a lump sum amount.

The order required immediate payment.

Application to dispense with the biological father's consent to the adoption of a child by the maternal grandparents.

The child has lived with the grandparents since birth and is approximately five years old.

The biological father has had minimal contact with the child, exercising almost no access over the years.

The court found it in the child's best interests to dispense with the father's consent and permit the adoption to proceed, as the child has no meaningful relationship with the father and would benefit from the permanency and security of adoption by the grandparents who have provided stable, loving care.

On an interim motion in a parenting dispute, the respondent father sought an order establishing an alternating-week parenting schedule for the parties’ two children pending trial.

The mother opposed the change, arguing that the existing primary-residence arrangement constituted a status quo that should not be disturbed.

Evidence from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer and its clinical investigator indicated that the children, who were of sufficient maturity, clearly expressed a preference to spend equal time with each parent and were affected by ongoing parental conflict over access.

The court held that although preservation of the status quo is a relevant consideration on interim motions, it is not an immutable principle and must yield to the children’s best interests.

Finding that an alternating-week schedule would provide greater certainty, reduce parental conflict, and reflect the children’s wishes without significantly disrupting their routines, the court granted the interim order.

The applicant sought costs against the respondent following the dismissal of a motion to change custody and access arrangements.

The original order from 2008 granted sole custody to the applicant with supervised access for the respondent.

The respondent brought a motion to change seeking unsupervised access in 2010.

After an interim settlement in 2012 that the respondent failed to comply with, the matter proceeded to trial where the motion to change was dismissed for lack of material change in circumstances.

The court awarded costs to the successful applicant.

The applicant sought costs following a successful motion to change child support obligations.

The applicant brought a motion to terminate child support payments for a child who had reached age 18 and was not in school, pursuant to a separation agreement dated September 24, 1999.

The respondent initially filed a response seeking disclosure of financial information and prospective and retroactive child support, arguing the child intended to pursue post-secondary education.

The parties subsequently consented to an interim order suspending child support payments, and the respondent withdrew her response.

A final order terminating child support was made by consent.

The court awarded costs to the successful applicant on a partial indemnity basis, finding the applicant was entitled to costs under the Family Law Rules despite the matter proceeding largely by consent.