Marlene VanderSpek

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for specified access between a child and his maternal grandparents.

The child's foster parent brought a cross-motion to be added as a party to the child protection proceeding.

The child had been in the foster parent's care for over two years and expressed a strong desire not to have contact with the maternal grandparents.

The court granted the foster parent's motion to be added as a party, finding that the foster parent had a legal interest, was capable of putting forward a plan of care, and was necessary to determine the issues.

The court dismissed the Society's motion for specified access, ordering instead that any access between the child and the maternal grandparents be subject to the child's wishes, as confirmed by the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The mother brought a motion to change a 2012 joint custody order, seeking sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of the 15-year-old child.

The child had experienced severe mental health struggles, including suicide attempts, and expressed a strong desire not to see the father due to his anger and controlling behaviour.

The father alleged parental alienation by the mother.

The court found a material change in circumstances and determined it was in the child's best interests to grant the mother sole decision-making responsibility.

The father's parenting time was ordered to occur only if initiated by the child, and he was prohibited from accessing the child's health and educational records without her consent.

In a divorce action, the applicant brought a motion to find the respondent in contempt for failing to comply with a prior disclosure order.

The respondent brought a cross-motion for additional disclosure from the applicant.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding that the respondent's delayed and partially incomplete disclosure was not a wilful omission.

The court also dismissed the respondent's disclosure motion, noting that most requests were either answered or unnecessary, and left the remaining items for a future settlement conference.

The child protection agency sought a temporary order under s. 51 of the Child and Family Services Act continuing a previous without‑prejudice order placing three children primarily in the mother’s care with supervision and access arrangements involving the father.

The court reviewed evidence of family conflict, the son’s aggressive behaviour, and parental challenges including mental health concerns and emotional volatility.

Applying the statutory principles of best interests of the child, preservation of family integrity, and the least disruptive course of action, the court determined different interim arrangements for each child.

The son and older daughter were placed with the mother subject to supervision and access to the father, while the youngest daughter was ordered to reside with both parents on an alternating schedule under supervision.

The Family Law Act custody motion was stayed pending the child protection proceeding.