Jesse Mark

The appellant father appealed a summary judgment order granting his 18-year-old daughter child support and university expenses.

The daughter had withdrawn from parental control, and the central issue was whether this withdrawal was involuntary under s. 31(2) of the Family Law Act.

The appeal judge found that the motion judge erred in granting summary judgment because there were significant facts in dispute regarding the voluntariness of the withdrawal that required a trial.

The appeal was allowed, the summary judgment was set aside, and the matter was ordered to proceed to trial.

The interim support order was varied to account for financial contributions made by the mother.

This is a costs decision following the court's determination of two motions: the respondent's motion for summary judgment and the applicant's motion for temporary child support.

The court granted partial summary judgment to the applicant on the issue of entitlement to child support and awarded both retroactive and prospective temporary child support.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of $17,789.72, arguing success, failure of the respondent to make settlement offers, unreasonable litigation behavior, and bad faith.

The respondent argued no costs should be awarded or alternatively costs should be limited to half of partial indemnity costs due to divided success.

The court awarded the applicant full indemnity costs, finding the applicant was substantially successful, the respondent engaged in unreasonable behavior including refusing to respond to settlement offers and bringing numerous unsuccessful procedural motions, and while not finding bad faith, the respondent's conduct warranted full cost recovery.

A 17-year-old university student sought child support from her father after withdrawing from his parental control.

The father moved for summary judgment to dismiss the application, arguing that the daughter's withdrawal from parental control under the Family Law Act disentitled her to support.

The court found that although the daughter had withdrawn from parental control, her withdrawal was involuntary due to the father's controlling nature, his failure to consider her best interests, his lack of attempts to repair the relationship, and the fact that she did not withdraw from both parents.

The court dismissed the father's motion and found the daughter entitled to child support.

The court also determined temporary child support of $6,500 per month, retroactive to August 1, 2016, and ordered the father to pay all college expenses as section 7 special and extraordinary expenses.

The quantum of final support was left for trial.

A father appealed a declaration granted by the Superior Court that his 16-year-old daughter had withdrawn from parental control under section 65 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The father argued that he was entitled to be a party to the application and that the court should not have granted the declaration.

The Court of Appeal held that while parents must be parties to applications under Part III of the CLRA, the court retains discretion to direct the extent of their participation.

The court also held that the factors to be considered on such an application extend beyond the child's age to include the reasons for the declaration, its utility, and the child's best interests.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondent brought a 14B motion to reopen evidence in two previously heard motions (a summary judgment motion to dismiss a child support application and a temporary support motion) that were awaiting decision.

The respondent sought to introduce fresh evidence regarding a receivership order affecting a company in which he held a 60% interest.

The applicant opposed the motion and sought dismissal, or alternatively, sought specific disclosure orders.

The court found it had jurisdiction to reopen argument but held that the respondent failed to meet the test for admission of fresh evidence, even under the relaxed standard applicable before decision release.

The respondent provided insufficient evidence demonstrating how the receivership would affect his ability to pay support.

The motion was dismissed with costs reserved.

Following the dismissal of the father's motion regarding his daughter's withdrawal from parental control, the daughter and mother sought costs.

The court found that while the father did not act in bad faith, he acted unreasonably by omitting relevant evidence, relying on inadmissible letters, using accusatory language, and failing to respond to offers to settle.

The daughter was awarded full indemnity costs of $6,063.52.

The mother's claim for costs was dismissed as her participation was not necessary.

The father, Robert Keith Glegg, brought a motion to set aside a prior order declaring his daughter, Olivia Glegg, an independent minor who had withdrawn from parental control, and sought temporary or permanent custody.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding that Olivia, being over 16, had a common law and statutory right to withdraw from parental control, and that the father was not entitled to be a party or receive notice of the original declaration application.

The court emphasized Olivia's articulate and thoughtful reasons for her decisions, including accelerating her university entrance and attending a university in Florida, which were deemed to be in her best interests.