Paternity

The moving party sought to set aside a 2002 default child support order, arguing he never received notice of the proceedings and was not the child's father.

The original applicant was deceased, and the arrears were being enforced by an assignee.

The court applied the Mountain View Farms factors and dismissed the motion, finding that setting aside the 20-year-old order would negatively impact the integrity of the administration of justice, as the moving party had been aware of the potential claim in 2002 but chose to ignore it.

The applicant mother, residing in South Carolina, commenced an application for child support under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, 2002.

The respondent father, residing in Ontario, raised paternity as an issue and proposed DNA testing.

The court requested further information from the reciprocating jurisdiction in 2019, which was not received.

The court dismissed the application pursuant to s. 11(4) of the Act, noting that the dismissal does not preclude the applicant from commencing a new support application.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for temporary custody of the parties' child due to concerns regarding the respondent mother's alcohol abuse.

The mother had recently left an alcohol rehabilitation program prior to completion and withheld the child from the father.

The court determined the applicant's paternity on consent and granted him full-time interim custody, finding it in the child's best interests given the mother's unresolved substance abuse issues.

The applicant mother brought a motion for an order compelling the respondent, who resides in Australia, to undergo DNA paternity testing regarding her 17-year-old child.

The respondent opposed, citing the applicant's delay in bringing the application and his privacy rights.

The court held that while it cannot compel the respondent to undergo testing, it has jurisdiction to grant leave to obtain a DNA test and draw adverse inferences if he refuses.

The court granted leave, finding that DNA testing provides the best evidence of paternity and that delay or privacy concerns do not override the need for this evidence.

The claimant sought retroactive child support from the respondent under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act for a child born in Saskatchewan to parents who did not cohabit.

The respondent initially disputed paternity but DNA testing confirmed his biological relationship to the child.

The court applied the principles from D.B.S. v. S.R.G. to determine whether retroactive support should be awarded and, if so, from what date.

The court awarded retroactive child support from January 1, 2015 to August 31, 2016, with ongoing prospective support commencing September 1, 2016.

A custody trial concerning a child born in February 2010 to parents involved in a high-conflict dispute.

The applicant, the biological father, sought sole custody against the respondent mother who was married to another man at the time of the child's birth.

The case involved complex factual issues including disputed paternity, false allegations of sexual assault, and parental alienation.

The court awarded sole custody to the biological father, finding that while both parents were capable, the respondent's persistent efforts to marginalize the father's role and her lack of willingness to foster the parent-child relationship were determinative factors.

A 14-year-old applicant commenced an application for child support against her alleged biological father, seeking private school tuition.

The respondent relied on a 1999 agreement with the applicant's mother settling child support on a final basis.

The parties brought multiple interim motions.

The court ordered that the parties be referred to by initials to protect the respondent's children, required the applicant to appoint a litigation guardian, and ordered the applicant and her mother to attend for questioning.

The court dismissed the applicant's motions for interim disbursements, temporary child support, and summary judgment, finding no immediate need for support and that the enforceability of the 1999 agreement was a genuine issue for trial.

Child protection motion concerning whether an individual previously declared the father of a child should be removed as a party after DNA testing established he was not the biological father.

The child protection agency sought to revoke the prior declaration of paternity and strike the individual from the proceeding under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Although the court accepted that the individual was not the biological father, it held he had been granted and exercised access to the child and therefore qualified as a “parent” within the meaning of s. 37(1)(e) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The evidence did not demonstrate that removing him from the proceeding would serve the child’s best interests or that any prejudice would arise from his continued participation.

The motion to strike him as a party was therefore dismissed.

A costs decision following a child support application.

The applicant mother sought costs of $33,006.67 after obtaining a decision on September 25, 2012 regarding child support for her son, retroactive support, life insurance coverage, and health/dental plan coverage.

The court found the applicant was successful on the retroactive support issue but unsuccessful on the life insurance claim.

The court rejected allegations of bad faith and unreasonable conduct by the respondent father.

The court awarded costs of $3,000 to the applicant, finding this to be a fair and reasonable amount in the circumstances, rather than full recovery of actual costs incurred.

The applicant mother sought child support for her child born in 2000, including retroactive support dating back to the child's birth or alternatively to August 2008.

The respondent father had never paid child support and disputed the retroactive claim.

The court applied the framework established in D.B.S. v. T.A.R., considering the reason for delay, conduct of the payor, circumstances of the child, and hardship to the payor.

While the father's failure to pay support was blameworthy, the mother's unreasonable eleven-year delay in seeking support was a significant factor.

The court awarded ongoing child support of $835 monthly, medical/dental coverage, and a limited retroactive award of $14,000 payable in four annual instalments commencing January 1, 2010.