2 total
The court limited discovery questioning and declined to appoint child's counsel in a custody dispute.
The respondent (father) brought a motion seeking Rule 20 questioning directions, amendment of the title of proceedings to reflect the applicant's married name, appointment of a lawyer for the children, and permission to amend his answer to include a hardship claim under section 10(1) of the Child Support Guidelines.
The underlying application concerns custody and child support following a separation in 2010, where the parties had executed a separation agreement providing for joint custody with primary residence to the mother and no table support.
The court granted the title amendment, dismissed the request for child's counsel appointment, limited the scope of Rule 20 questioning, and adjourned the hardship claim amendment for a separate motion.
Appeal of permanent wardship order dismissed as upsetting the child's stability was not in their best interests.
The appellant appealed a decision granting permanent wardship of a child with no access, arguing that circumstances had substantially changed since the original decision, including the death of a younger child and the original foster mother, and the appellant's continuing efforts to improve parenting abilities.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the evidence amply supported the lower courts' findings and that the changes did not alter the expert conclusion that permanent wardship with no access was in the child's best interests.
The court noted the child had been in a stable and loving foster home for three years and upsetting that stability would not be in the child's best interests.
