3 total
Motion to extend time to perfect appeal dismissed due to moving party's ongoing breaches of court orders.
The moving party sought an extension of time to perfect his appeal from a family law order, intending to adduce fresh expert evidence.
The moving party had previously had his pleadings struck for breaching disclosure and support orders, and remained in breach of ongoing support obligations.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding the moving party lacked clean hands and that the delay was inexcusable and prejudicial to the responding party and children.
The proposed appeal was also found to be without apparent merit.
Foster child ordered returned to applicant's care after society failed to provide statutory notice of removal.
The applicant foster parent sought a review of the respondent Children's Aid Society's decision to remove a 32-month-old child from her care following a domestic dispute between the applicant and her former partner.
The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the respondent failed to provide the statutorily required notice of removal and improperly removed the child without a local director's opinion of risk.
The Board rejected the respondent's argument that it lacked jurisdiction to order the child returned to a closed Outside Paid Resource foster home.
Applying the best interests of the child test, the Board concluded that the child's physical, mental, and emotional needs, as well as the importance of continuity of care and the child's strong attachment to the applicant, favoured returning the child to the applicant's care.
The removal decision was rescinded.
Successful father awarded reduced costs of $1,500 given mother's limited income.
Following a motion on parenting time in which the respondent father was granted an increase on a graduated basis — less than he sought but more than the applicant mother preferred — the court addressed costs.
The father sought $2,000 all-inclusive, acknowledging the mother's modest annual income of approximately $45,000.
The mother sought $3,500, arguing she was the more successful party.
The court found the father prevailed on the motion, but reduced his costs award to $1,500 all-inclusive, payable within 30 days, to account for the mother's financial situation and the ongoing need for cooperative co-parenting in the child's best interests.
