Michael Andrew Chambers

This decision concerns the temporary care and custody of a child, S., apprehended at birth by the Children's Aid Society.

The agency relied on a prior parenting assessment report regarding the parents' first child, which the court ultimately rejected due to concerns about the assessor's qualifications, methodology, and potential bias, particularly concerning the Metis mother.

Despite the child's serious medical condition, the court found no evidence that the mother was unable or unwilling to provide necessary medical care.

The court emphasized that children should not be removed from parents solely because specialized medical services are not available in their rural community.

The court ordered the child to be returned to the mother's temporary care, subject to supervision and a detailed plan for medical support and training.

This is a costs endorsement following a prior motion in a family law matter.

The applicant sought costs, arguing she was substantially more successful on the main issue of the respondent's income imputation, which impacted child and spousal support.

The respondent argued for divided success and that each party should bear their own costs or receive a substantial discount.

The court found the applicant was the more successful party on the most significant issue and that the respondent's conduct, including non-compliance with financial disclosure and failure to pay support, was unreasonable, though it did not amount to bad faith.

The court awarded the applicant $12,000 in costs, inclusive of HST.

The respondent father brought a motion to vary previous orders, seeking temporary sole custody of the children and no access for the applicant mother, following the dropping of criminal charges against him and new charges laid against the mother.

The applicant mother opposed this and requested a s. 30 assessment.

The court dismissed the father's request for sole custody and no access for the mother, but granted him temporary supervised access with the paternal grandmother.

The mother's request for a s. 30 assessment was also declined at this stage.

The respondent brought a motion to set aside a divorce order obtained at an uncontested hearing after she had been noted in default for failing to file an Answer.

The court applied the test for setting aside a default judgment by analogy to Rule 19.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as permitted by the Family Law Rules.

The court found the motion was brought promptly, that the moving party provided a reasonable explanation for the default, and that there was an arguable case regarding the equalization of net family property and ongoing support issues.

Given the existence of unresolved financial issues, the court concluded that the matter should proceed with full participation of both parties.

The noting in default and the divorce order were set aside and the parties were directed to proceed to a settlement conference.