Sadia Chowdhury

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding complaints against the respondent children's aid society.

The applicant alleged that former workers of the respondent interfered with him, committed fraud, and disclosed private information between 2006 and 2025.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction as its involvement with the applicant ended in 2000.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction because the complaints did not relate to services sought or received from the respondent, and complaints regarding the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order directing the partition and sale of the parties' matrimonial home and dismissing her cross-motion for temporary exclusive possession.

The Divisional Court found that the motion judge applied the correct legal test, balancing the prima facie right to sale against potential prejudice, and appropriately considered the status quo of the parties and their adult children.

Finding no palpable and overriding error or error of law, the court dismissed the appeal and awarded costs to the respondent.

The applicant mother brought a motion for $30,000 in interim disbursements under Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules to fund a critique of the respondent father's income valuation and further litigation steps regarding child support.

The court applied the modified Okanagan test for family law cases.

While finding the applicant impecunious and that an award would level the playing field, the court dismissed the motion without prejudice because the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case that the respondent's income was higher than disclosed, and failed to provide evidence detailing how the requested funds would be utilized.