M. Lannan

The appellant mother appealed an order denying her access to her two children, who were made Crown wards without access.

The appellant argued the motions judge erred in applying the test for access under s. 59(2.1) of the repealed Child and Family Services Act.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the motions judge correctly concluded that the appellant's relationship with the children was not 'significantly advantageous' to reach the threshold of 'beneficial and meaningful.' Although the motions judge erred in her analysis of whether access would impair future adoption, the court found that a court-mandated access order would indeed impair the children's opportunity for adoption.

Following separation after a religious marriage ceremony not registered under the Marriage Act, the court addressed spousal support and equalization under the Family Law Act.

The court declined to impute income to the respondent despite WSIB correspondence suggesting earning capacity, finding insufficient medical evidence to determine employability.

Applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, the court ordered time-limited spousal support near the low end of the guideline range.

The court also determined the parties’ net family property, addressed ownership of a jointly purchased vehicle, and ordered equalization with additional compensation for transportation costs after the applicant interfered with the respondent’s possession of the vehicle.

A declaration was made that the parties were no longer married for the purposes of the Family Law Act.