Larry Wayne Haskell

This case involved a dispute between parents (Plaintiffs) and their son (Defendant) regarding financial advances made for a Jeep purchase, a property in Melancthon, and the purchase and renovation of 217 Victoria Street, Shelburne.

The Plaintiffs sought repayment of these funds, asserting they were loans, while the Defendant contended some advances were gifts and claimed compensation for his renovation work on 217 Victoria Street.

The court found that the advances for the Jeep and 217 Victoria Street were repayable loans.

However, it was not satisfied that the funds advanced for the Melancthon property were definitively loans, acknowledging the possibility they were gifts.

The Defendant's claim for renovation work was largely dismissed due to insufficient evidentiary support and lack of certainty in quantification.

The applicant child welfare agency sought direction from the court regarding an adoption order made in March 2013.

The agency had failed to comply with statutory notice requirements under the Child and Family Services Act before placing the child for adoption.

Specifically, the agency did not provide required notice to the Office of the Children's Lawyer regarding existing access orders between the adopted child and her sibling.

The court determined it had jurisdiction to temporarily set aside the adoption order to allow the notice requirements to be fulfilled and to permit applications for openness orders to be made on the merits, balancing the policy of adoption finality against fundamental fairness to the affected children.

The applicant mother sought retroactive and ongoing child support as well as a proportionate share of private school tuition fees for the parties' eight-year-old son.

The father agreed to pay ongoing guideline support but opposed retroactive support beyond the date of service and refused to contribute to private school fees.

The court declined to award retroactive support prior to December 1, 2012, finding the mother's delay in pursuing the claim was not sufficiently justified despite her safety concerns.

The court also declined to order the father to contribute to private school fees, finding the expense was not necessary and represented a choice by the mother rather than a genuine need that could not be met in the public system.

The Crown brought a forfeiture application seeking to forfeit a New Holland T6050 Tractor and F250 Loader used by the offender when he was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while disqualified from doing so.

The offender's father, who claimed a partnership interest in the farm equipment, opposed the forfeiture.

The court applied the three-step test for forfeiture under Section 490.1 of the Criminal Code and found that while the equipment was offence-related property and all interested parties were properly notified, the forfeiture would be disproportionate under Section 490.41(3).

The court concluded that the tractor was essential to the family farm operation and that forfeiture would cause undue economic harm to the legitimate farming enterprise beyond the offender alone.

The defendant was charged with criminal harassment under section 264 of the Criminal Code for repeatedly contacting his former partner over approximately ten months following their breakup in May 2011.

The Crown alleged unwanted text messages, phone calls, written communications, and physical surveillance.

The defendant was acquitted of the criminal harassment charge but was bound over under a section 810 peace bond for 12 months with conditions prohibiting contact with the complainant and attendance within 100 metres of her residence, employment, or other known locations.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking findings that a child was in need of protection and requesting placement with the father under supervision.

The father brought a concurrent motion for custody.

The mother opposed both motions.

The court found that the child suffered emotional harm due to the mother's pattern of alienating the child from the father, withholding access contrary to court orders, coaching the child to make false abuse allegations, and failing to address the child's medical and developmental needs.

The court granted both motions, placing the child in the sole custody of the father with specified access to the mother, and terminated the father's child support obligation.