K. Burns

The applicant brought a family law motion seeking interim child support, section 7 expenses, interim spousal support, arrears, and partition and sale of a jointly owned home.

The court rejected unilateral interim income imputation by the respondent and ordered temporary set-off child support based on sworn financial statement incomes, with no interim arrears determination.

The court also ordered interim spousal support at the low end of the SSAG range and declined interim arrears of spousal support due to an insufficient evidentiary record.

Relief respecting section 7 expenses was left to trial, and the partition and sale request was adjourned to a later date or conference.

Success was divided and no costs were awarded.

This case concerns a temporary care hearing under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, for two children, JS1 and DA.

The applicant, Dilico Anishinabek Family Care, sought to place the children in its temporary care due to concerns of physical harm and neglect by the parents, including inappropriate discipline, failure to meet children's needs, and substance abuse.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children were at risk, citing consistent allegations from the children, the parents' uncooperative behaviour, lack of insight, and failure to complete rehabilitative programs.

The court ordered the children into the temporary care of the agency with supervised access for the parents.

The applicant agency sought a temporary supervision order for a child with special needs, alleging neglect and risk of harm by the mother.

The court found insufficient evidence for several of the agency's allegations, including drug use, striking the child, and unreasonable expectations regarding the mother's cooperation with a First Nation community and school pick-ups.

The court granted a temporary supervision order, allowing the child to remain in the mother's care subject to specific conditions, while criticizing the agency's approach.

The applicant, Dilico Anishinabek Family Care, sought a protection order for a child, P.W., based on allegations of sexual abuse by the father, L.W., against his older daughter, M.W. The father and Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss Dilico's application, arguing no genuine issue for trial and agency failures in disclosure and consultation.

Dilico also moved to strike portions of an affidavit.

The court dismissed both summary judgment motions, finding that a genuine issue requiring a trial existed regarding the sexual abuse allegations.

The court also dismissed the First Nation's motion to strike, noting their default in filing an answer.

The matter was directed to proceed to a focused hearing to determine protection findings.

This motion concerned an application by D.A. for custody of or access to a child, A.H., under the Children's Law Reform Act (CLRA).

Dilico Anishinabek Family Care, a respondent, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss or strike D.A.'s application.

Dilico argued that D.A. was a foster parent prohibited from bringing such an application under Family Law Rule 7(4), and that there was no genuine issue for trial under Rule 16 because a valid customary care agreement (CCA) was in place, to which the court should defer.

The court dismissed Dilico's motion, finding that D.A. was not a "foster parent" as defined by the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA) and that Rule 7(4) does not prohibit a foster parent from commencing an application.

Furthermore, the court found the customary care agreements invalid due to lack of proper signatures and First Nation involvement, and that Dilico had acted outside its mandate.

The court concluded there was a genuine issue for trial regarding the child's best interests and ordered the CLRA proceeding to continue, staying the customary care agreement.