Michelle Simone

The appellant mother, S. (D.), sought an order to extend the time to file a notice of appeal against a Crown wardship order for her three children.

The original order, making the children Crown wards with limited supervised access, was issued on April 24, 2017, and the appeal limitation period expired on May 24, 2017.

The motion for extension was filed nearly a year later.

The court applied the five-factor test from Issasi v. Rosenzweig, considering the appellant's intention to appeal, the length and explanation for delay, prejudice to the children, merits of the appeal, and the justice of the case.

The court found insufficient evidence of timely intention to appeal, an unreasonable delay, significant prejudice to the children's permanency planning, and a lack of merit in the proposed appeal.

Consequently, the motion to extend time was dismissed, emphasizing the imperative for expeditious resolution in child welfare matters and the best interests of the children.

A custody and access dispute between the mother and father of a child born in 2006.

The father sought custody with supervised access to the mother; the mother sought sole custody and spousal support on a time-limited basis.

The court found extensive evidence of emotional and verbal abuse by the father toward the mother, the child in question, and the mother's other children from previous relationships.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, restricted the father's access to every second weekend and every second Wednesday, and ordered child support and time-limited spousal support.

The court found the father's disciplinary methods, including attempting to "break the child's spirit," to be inappropriate and harmful.

On competing family law motions, the respondent sought unsupervised access to eight‑month‑old twin children while the applicant sought child support and an order requiring the respondent to pay mortgage and household expenses in lieu of spousal support.

The court considered evidence of alleged domestic violence, alcohol abuse, mental health concerns, and recent criminal charges, as well as the position of child protection authorities requiring supervised contact.

Given the children’s vulnerability and the absence of corroborating evidence from treatment providers or child protection services supporting unsupervised parenting, the court held that unsupervised access was not in the children’s best interests at that time.

An interim‑interim order continued supervised access through Child and Family Services with the possibility of expanded supervised visits through a supervised access centre.

The court also ordered guideline child support and an interim‑interim arrangement for mortgage payments as temporary spousal support pending a further motion.