Jessi L.N. Stanfield

The Applicant, Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County, brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the child J.M.C. was in need of protection and an order for supervision of the Mother with supervised access for the Father.

The Mother consented to the relief, while the Father opposed, seeking custody or alternative placement.

The court found the child in need of protection under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, citing ongoing parental conflict and the Father's history of domestic violence and anger management issues.

The Father's opposition was dismissed, and the court granted a six-month supervision order for the Mother and specific terms for the Father's supervised access, rejecting the Applicant's request for discretionary access.

The applicant was ordered to pay costs to the respondent following a motion where the respondent was largely successful on the predominant issues, including the duration of spousal support, child support for post-secondary education, and tax credit reimbursement.

The court found no basis for substantial indemnity costs, noting the applicant's reasonable conduct and offer to settle, and reduced the respondent's claim for costs related to previous steps and the necessity of the applicant's motion.

The applicant sought to terminate child support and spousal support, and for reimbursement of child support overpayments.

The respondent sought to increase spousal support, apply child support overpayments to retroactive spousal support, and establish a mechanism for post-secondary education contributions.

The court terminated child support effective October 1, 2015, increased spousal support retroactively, credited the child support overpayment against the increased spousal support, and ordered proportionate contributions for post-secondary education expenses, with spousal support reviewable in three years.

Rebecca Steckly moved to set aside a default order granted to Nolan Steckly in an uncontested family law trial, which dealt with custody, access, equalization, and sale of the matrimonial home.

The court applied the three-part test under Rule 19.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure (by analogy to Family Law Rules 1(7)): timeliness, plausible explanation for default, and arguable defence on the merits.

The court found Rebecca met all three criteria, noting her lack of awareness of deadlines and consequences of default, and significant discrepancies in evidence regarding child care, finances, and spousal support.

The default order was set aside, and terms were imposed for filing materials and proceeding to a case conference, with interim custody/access terms maintained.