B. Lynn

The applicant children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to have two children placed in extended society care with no parental access.

The children had been apprehended following severe physical abuse and restraint by the respondent parents.

The court applied the summary judgment framework and found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the material facts of the abuse were established and the parents' parenting capacity assessments indicated a high risk of future harm.

The motion was granted, the children were placed in extended society care, and parental access was denied as it was not in the children's best interests.

On a motion to change a final divorce order, the applicant sought substantial retroactive reductions in child support, termination of spousal support, reallocation of section 7 expenses, relief from arrears-related obligations, and restraining relief, relying primarily on the closure of his business and reduced employment income following personal bankruptcy.

The court found a material change in circumstances, but also found that the bankruptcy and business closure were voluntary, strategically motivated, and accompanied by incomplete income disclosure, particularly as to tip income.

Despite serious credibility concerns and highly unreasonable conduct, the court held the existing order was unrealistically beyond the applicant's present means and varied support retroactively to more practical amounts.

Child support was reduced effective August 1, 2012, spousal support was reduced to nominal ongoing support of $200 per month, section 7 contribution was fixed at 46%, mutual restraining-type terms were imposed, and the respondent received full recovery costs.

Costs were determined following competing family law motions concerning supervision and expansion of parental access to a child.

The applicant grandmother sought to change the supervisor of the father’s access, while the mother sought unsupervised staged access.

The court had dismissed the applicant’s motion and granted the mother’s cross‑motion for unsupervised access.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court held that costs presumptively follow the event and found no bad faith or unreasonable conduct sufficient to displace that presumption.

Partial indemnity costs were therefore awarded to each successful respondent for their respective motions.