On an interim family law motion, the court held that it had jurisdiction under the Divorce Act to make a parenting order respecting an adult child of the marriage who remained under parental charge due to developmental disability.
The court rejected the argument that parenting orders for adult disabled children were philosophically or procedurally inappropriate, holding that the statutory best-interests framework remained applicable and that an SDA proceeding was not a necessary prerequisite.
Applying the usual approach to unilateral changes in parenting arrangements, the court declined to condone one parent's pandemic-era reduction of the other parent's time absent compelling evidence that the long-standing shared arrangement was harmful.
An interim 50/50 parenting regime was restored on a week-on, week-off schedule, with directions for a joint expert-type professional retainer to elicit the adult child's views and preferences before final determination.
Costs were awarded to the moving party.
