Jessica Braude

The Applicant father sought an urgent motion to enforce a shared parenting schedule for his two children, which the Respondent mother had unilaterally suspended for five weeks due to her immunocompromised status and concerns about COVID-19 exposure.

The court applied principles from Ribeiro v Wright, emphasizing children's best interests and the need for specific evidence of non-compliance with COVID-19 protocols.

The court found the mother's concerns largely overstated and unsupported, and her approach self-centred and undermining of the father-child relationship.

The motion was granted, restoring parenting time to the father with specific COVID-19 safety protocols.

The respondent, represented by the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT), brought a motion to set aside the corollary relief of a default divorce order obtained by the applicant.

The PGT argued that the respondent, who has a history of mental illness, lacked the capacity to instruct counsel or understand the implications of not responding to the original application.

The court considered the respondent's fluctuating mental health, the applicant's knowledge of her condition, and the need for procedural and substantive fairness under the Family Law Rules.

The court granted the motion to set aside the corollary relief, ordered the production of counselling records to determine the correct valuation date, but dismissed requests for a non-depletion order and an immediate increase in spousal support.

The plaintiff brought a class action for damages arising from the "Sixties Scoop" alleging that Canada breached its obligation under the 1965 Canada-Ontario Welfare Services Agreement to consult Indian bands before extending child welfare services to reserves.

This failure resulted in the loss of aboriginal identity for thousands of children placed with non-aboriginal foster or adoptive parents.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, finding Canada liable for breaching a common law duty of care, though it did not establish a fiduciary duty.

The case will proceed to the damages assessment stage.

The applicant child was successful on a motion for interim relief against the respondent father, obtaining a declaration of parentage, child support, and interim disbursements.

The parties could not agree on costs.

The applicant sought full recovery costs based on an offer to settle and the respondent's unreasonable behaviour.

The court rejected the respondent's argument that the issues were novel or of public interest.

Finding the respondent's behaviour unreasonable and that the applicant beat her offer to settle, the court awarded costs of $32,523.72.

A child brought a motion to vary an earlier interim family law order to obtain interim child support, interim disbursements, DNA testing or alternatively a declaration of parentage, and to vacate a non-contact provision.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on the absence of a pending trial, deterioration in the child’s financial circumstances, the respondent’s continuing disclosure failures, and the respondent’s renewed reliance on paternity uncertainty.

Applying the statutory child support scheme, the court held that the parents’ prior agreement could not bargain away the child’s right to support, imputed income of $200,000 to the alleged father, and ordered interim Guideline support retroactive to April 1, 2014.

After the respondent stated he would refuse DNA testing if ordered, the court drew an adverse inference from that refusal and the surrounding evidence, and made a declaration of parentage.

The court also ordered $50,000 in interim disbursements, vacated the prior non-contact order upon filing of an undertaking, and adjourned the motion to strike the Answer while giving a final deadline for disclosure.

In a family law proceeding arising from a child’s motion, the court refused a late adjournment request brought by the respondent and his partner.

The court held that the absence of historical counsel’s file, alleged deficiencies in the child’s financial disclosure, and incomplete questioning did not justify delaying urgently needed interim child support, particularly where the respondent himself was in breach of disclosure obligations.

The court also dismissed a non-party partner’s motion to add herself and her children as parties, finding they were not proper parties and that any relevant evidence could have been advanced by affidavit.

The motion proceeded without adjournment.