3 total
Court orders anonymity and seals file to protect child in parentage dispute.
In a family law proceeding involving access and a declaration of parentage following a sperm donation, the parties jointly sought an order protecting the privacy of the child at the centre of the dispute.
The requested relief included amending the title of proceedings to use initials, prohibiting publication of identifying information, and sealing the court file.
The court held that the sensitive and intimate nature of the information in the proceedings created a risk of future emotional or psychological harm to the child if identifying details entered the public domain.
Relying on analogous cases and statutory authority under the Courts of Justice Act, the court concluded that the proposed anonymity and sealing measures were necessary and would not impair public debate about the legal issues.
The requested orders were granted to protect the child’s privacy and best interests.
Consent order declaring sperm donor agreement invalid set aside due to lack of notice and counsel's authority.
The respondent mother brought a motion to change a consent order made at a settlement conference that declared a sperm donor agreement invalid.
The mother's former counsel had consented to the order via telephone while the mother was not present, and without prior notice that the agreement's validity would be determined.
The court found it had jurisdiction under Rule 25(19)(d) of the Family Law Rules to change the order because it was made without notice and the mother's counsel lacked ostensible authority to consent.
The motion was granted and the order was changed.
Interim access denied to biological father pending trial to preserve status quo.
The biological father brought a motion seeking interim access to a child conceived through artificial insemination pursuant to a prior donor agreement in which he purported to relinquish parental rights.
The respondent mother opposed access and relied on the existing status quo in which the child had never met the biological father.
Applying the best interests test under s. 24(2) of the Children's Law Reform Act, the court acknowledged the importance of biological relationships but emphasized the principle of maintaining the status quo on interim motions.
Given the child's young age and the proximity of the scheduled trial date, the court found that introducing the applicant at the interim stage risked confusion and potential harm.
The motion for interim access and related requests were dismissed.
