Leslie Robertson

A community advocacy organization sought leave to intervene as a friend of the court in a family law dispute concerning a declaration of parentage and access involving a child conceived through a known sperm donor arrangement.

The court considered the criteria for intervention under Rule 13.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the nature of the case, the issues raised, and whether the intervenor could make a useful contribution without causing injustice to the parties.

The dispute raised broader socio‑legal questions about assisted human reproduction, donor agreements, and the recognition of diverse family structures.

The court found the proposed intervenor possessed relevant expertise, a substantial interest in the subject matter, and a distinct perspective that could assist the court.

Leave to intervene was granted subject to limitations designed to prevent duplication, expansion of issues, or additional costs.

The applicant father brought an interim motion seeking custody, shared parenting, property equalization, spousal support terms, and various ancillary orders shortly before trial.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion seeking interim support.

The court declined to alter the existing de facto custody arrangement with the mother, holding that credibility disputes and parenting determinations should be resolved at trial.

However, the court granted limited procedural relief including production of CAS records and increased access as proposed by the mother.

On the cross-motion, the court ordered interim spousal support and increased child support based on the father’s income and the mother’s financial hardship.

On a family law motion, the respondent spouse sought interim and retroactive spousal support while the applicant spouse brought a cross-motion to sever the divorce claim from remaining issues.

The court considered the parties’ financial circumstances, including disability income received by the payor and the recipient’s reliance on social assistance and limited earning capacity following years of supporting the family during military postings.

The court declined to treat the payor’s voluntary financial assistance to adult children in university as section 7 expenses reducing ability to pay.

Interim spousal support was ordered along with partial retroactive support.

The divorce claim was severed to permit it to proceed independently.

The plaintiff brought a civil action alleging assault, sexual assault, harassment, intentional infliction of mental distress, discrimination under the Ontario Human Rights Code, and negligence arising from her arrest by police officers following an altercation during a traffic stop.

The court considered whether the officers used excessive force during the arrest and detention, whether sexualized comments and touching constituted sexual assault, and whether the conduct amounted to intentional infliction of mental suffering.

The court relied in part on the plaintiff’s prior guilty plea to obstructing a police officer and accepted the officers’ evidence that the plaintiff had bodychecked one officer and resisted arrest.

It held that the police were justified in using reasonable force under s. 25(1) of the Criminal Code and that the plaintiff failed to prove the alleged torts on a balance of probabilities.

Claims under s. 46.1 of the Ontario Human Rights Code were also dismissed because the provision was not in force at the time of the events.