Michael S. L. Roberts

A child protection matter under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act involving a child (B-J) born in 2009 to a mother with a longstanding oxycontin addiction and a father with a history of incarceration.

The child was apprehended in September 2014 following allegations of domestic violence and placed with family friends (the F.).

A finding of need of protection was made in February 2015 based on domestic violence and drug use.

The mother was given multiple opportunities over nearly three years to comply with court-ordered conditions including drug treatment, counselling, and consistent access.

Despite these opportunities and various court orders, the mother repeatedly failed to maintain clean urine screens, attend counselling programs, and maintain consistent access with the child.

The mother also chose a new partner with a serious criminal record and active drug addiction.

The court found that the child's best interests required a Crown wardship order to provide permanency and stability, as the mother had demonstrated an inability to address the core risk factors of drug addiction and domestic violence exposure.

Following a 30-year relationship, the applicant sought spousal support and equalization of net family property.

The court determined the valuation date and calculated the equalization payment owed by the respondent.

The court imputed income to both parties, as neither was working at the time of trial, and ordered the respondent to pay spousal support of $500 per month for an indefinite period.

The proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home were distributed to account for equalization, costs, and overpayment of interim spousal support.

Following an earlier endorsement determining entitlement regarding retroactive child support and section 7 expenses, the court was asked to resolve competing calculations and determine costs.

The dispute concerned retroactive child support for one child while ongoing support had previously been paid for two children, creating difficulty in crediting payments already made.

The court declined to apply the calculation approaches discussed in Field v. Field and instead adopted a modified method that accounted for ongoing support for one child while adjusting retroactive support for the other.

After accounting for payments and section 7 expenses, the court found a small balance owing from the applicant to the respondent but offset that amount with a minimal costs award to the applicant.

On a family law motion concerning retroactive child support, ongoing support, and s.7 post-secondary expenses for two children, the court held that one child ceased to be a child of the marriage when he finished school and began full-time employment, barring retroactive and s.7 claims for him.

For the second child, the court found he resided with the father for a period, terminated support for that interval, continued support until full-time employment commenced, and limited retroactive support to the three years preceding the mother's motion.

The court rejected a claim of blameworthy conduct sufficient to justify reaching back to 2000.

It further held that one-third of the support payor's RSP withdrawals should be included in income for child support purposes and ordered a proportionate contribution to post-secondary expenses.