Margaret A. McSorley

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection and an order for extended society care with no access.

The mother had a history of substance abuse and criminal activity, and failed to comply with previous court orders or address the protection concerns.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, determined the child was in need of protection, and ordered extended society care.

The court also terminated the mother's access, finding it was not beneficial and meaningful to the child.

The applicant brought a motion to reopen the evidence of a July 2016 trial regarding spousal support, arguing that new evidence about the respondent's housing, increased income, and his own decreased income justified changing the support order.

The court applied the two-part test for admitting fresh evidence before a judgment is entered.

The court found that the new evidence either could have been discovered with reasonable diligence or would not have changed the outcome of the trial.

The motion was dismissed, and the original spousal support order was directed to be issued and enforced.

The applicant mother sought joint custody and primary residence of the child, Cylus, along with child support and s.7 expenses.

The respondent father also sought joint custody with primary residence, child support, and s.7 expenses.

The court, applying the "best interests of the child" principle under the Children's Law Reform Act, determined that the child's primary residence should be with the father, considering the stability he provided and the mother's military career requiring frequent moves.

The court also addressed child support and s.7 expenses, ordering the mother to pay support and share expenses, with adjustments for past travel costs.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment in status review proceedings concerning a child, T.E., seeking a custody order for the child's godfather and his wife (J.T. and S.T.) and reasonable access for the mother (S.E.) subject to the child's wishes.

The mother opposed the specific access terms and sought joint custody.

The court granted the summary judgment motion, finding no genuine issues for trial regarding custody or access.

Custody was awarded to J.T. and S.T., and the mother was granted reasonable access subject to the child's wishes, with the caregivers encouraged to facilitate contact.

The decision emphasized the child's best interests, his clear wishes, and the need for finality and permanency.

The respondent, Christopher MacArthur, brought a motion to add the applicant Jennifer Breen's fiancé, Adam Brock, as a party to ongoing 'motion to change' proceedings, which included a claim for a restraining order against Mr. Brock.

The court considered whether adding Mr. Brock was necessary to decide all issues in the case, applying Rule 7(5) and Rule 14(3) of the Family Law Rules.

The court found that Mr. Brock's involvement was not necessary for the main proceedings concerning custody and access, noting that he would automatically be a party for the purposes of the interim restraining order motion.

The motion to add Mr. Brock as a party to the main proceedings was dismissed, with the court emphasizing that such additions should be used sparingly to avoid complicating litigation and increasing costs, which could negatively impact the children's best interests.

In a child protection proceeding, the society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking findings that the youngest child was in need of protection and that all three children be made Crown wards without access.

The court reviewed the history of domestic violence, parental instability, and repeated apprehensions, and found there was no genuine issue requiring a trial on whether the children were in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act.

However, the court determined that genuine issues remained regarding disposition, including competing plans advanced by the mother, the maternal grandmother, and the society.

Evidence suggesting changed circumstances and community support for the mother, as well as a proposed placement with the grandmother approved by Nova Scotia authorities, raised triable issues.

The court therefore granted summary judgment only on the protection finding and ordered that disposition proceed to trial.

Maternal grandparents applied for court-ordered access to their grandchildren under the Children’s Law Reform Act after the parents terminated contact following family conflict and eviction proceedings.

The court reviewed the governing principles on grandparent access, emphasizing that the best interests of the child and parental decision-making authority are paramount where parents are attentive to their children’s needs.

Although the court accepted that a prior relationship existed and found aspects of the parents’ allegations exaggerated, the evidence also demonstrated significant and ongoing hostility between the adults and an incident involving secret contact that precipitated child protection proceedings.

The court concluded that the relationship between the grandparents and the children was ordinary rather than “special” and that ordering access would likely intensify conflict and place the children in the middle of adult disputes.

The application for access was dismissed, though the grandparents were permitted to send cards and gifts on special occasions.