Judith Charest

The respondent moving party sought summary judgment to dismiss the applicant estate's family law application for equalization.

The deceased spouse had instructed counsel to commence an equalization claim before his death, but no application was filed.

The court held that under the Family Law Act, the right to claim equalization is personal between spouses, and an estate cannot initiate a new claim for equalization after a spouse's death.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the estate's application was dismissed.

The parties separated following an incident leading to the father's arrest for assault.

The children remained with the mother.

The father brought an interim motion seeking shared custody and equal parenting time, relying on the maximum contact principle.

The mother brought a cross-motion to maintain the status quo and sought child support.

The court dismissed the father's request for equal parenting time, finding that modifying the long-standing interim regime before trial was not in the children's best interests.

The court ordered the father to pay child support of $890 per month and directed pro rata sharing of special expenses.

The applicant, P.R.D., brought a motion for summary judgment seeking exclusive custody of the child, M.R.D., and supervised access for the respondent, K.B. K.B. opposed the motion, requesting joint custody, unsupervised access, or an investigation by the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The court reviewed K.B.'s history of mental health issues and substance abuse, noting a lack of recent medical evidence demonstrating stability.

Applying the principles for summary judgment in family law, the court found no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court granted P.R.D. exclusive custody and ordered supervised access for K.B., prioritizing the child's best interests due to K.B.'s unproven stability for unsupervised visits.

The applicant children's aid society applied for a status review, initially supporting the child's adoption by his foster mother, but later amending its application to support adoption by the child's paternal aunts.

The foster mother, who had cared for the child for 28 months and helped him overcome severe attachment and anxiety issues, was added as a party and sought to adopt him.

The court found that removing the child from the foster mother's care would cause significant emotional harm and that remaining with her was in his best interests.

Finding a legislative gap in the Child and Family Services Act that prevented a custody order in favour of a foster parent on a status review, the court exercised its parens patriae jurisdiction to declare the child a Crown ward with the express purpose of being adopted by the foster mother.

The children's aid society brought a motion for temporary care and custody of a four-year-old child.

The society sought to have the child remain in the mother's care, subject to strict supervision by the maternal grandfather, due to allegations of physical abuse involving the mother's partner and another child.

The mother opposed the supervision order, while the father sought temporary custody.

The court found credible evidence that the child would be at risk of harm if left unsupervised with the mother or her partner.

The court granted the society's motion, ordering that the child remain with the mother under the grandfather's supervision, with the father having access every second weekend.

Child protection motion under the Child and Family Services Act seeking a temporary care and custody order.

The court considered evidence of chronic school absences, unsanitary living conditions including mold, concerns about supervision, sexualized behaviour by one child, and a positive hair follicle drug test for amphetamines/methamphetamines by the father.

The court found the father had not demonstrated the ability to protect the children from ongoing harm and instability.

It concluded that supervision would be insufficient to protect the children.

A temporary order placing the children in the care and custody of the child protection agency for six months was granted.

Following a successful motion in a family law proceeding, the court determined the issue of costs.

Applying the presumption under paragraph 24(1) of the Rules, the successful party was entitled to costs.

However, the court considered the responding party’s good faith and modest financial resources, as well as the potential impact of a costs award on the welfare of the child.

Costs were therefore reduced and structured as modest monthly payments.

Following earlier family law motions concerning custody, supervised access, and relocation after separation, the successful party sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court considered the factors under rule 24.11 of the Family Law Rules, including the importance of the issues, the conduct of the parties, and the reasonableness of the legal fees claimed.

Although the moving party had primary success on the central custody and relocation issues, the responding party obtained unsupervised access, resulting in partial success.

The court found the costs claim excessive and limited the award to costs relating to the motions rather than the entire proceeding.

Partial indemnity costs of $5,000 were awarded.