Parveen Malik

The applicant's counsel of record appeared at a family law case conference but advised she was on medical leave and would not be speaking to the matter.

A student-at-law, who was not a lawyer, paralegal, or family legal services provider, rose to represent the applicant without indicating he was appearing under the Family Law Pilot Project or that he was a Permitted Candidate.

Upon inquiry, the court determined his Law Society identification card as a Licensing Process-Lawyer Candidate had expired over a year earlier.

The court reviewed the requirements under Rule 4 of the Family Law Rules and the Family Law Pilot Project for non-lawyer representation and ruled that the individual was not permitted to represent the applicant.

The court considered an application for interim spousal support by Harmanpreet Kaur, sponsored to Canada by Jaskaran Singh Meen.

Meen conceded entitlement and the court determined the quantum, ordering $1,150 per month in interim support, exceeding the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines due to the sponsorship undertaking and the recipient’s needs.

The court also awarded $3,500 in costs to Kaur, finding Meen’s conduct unnecessarily lengthened the motion.

The decision reviews the law on interim support, the effect of sponsorship undertakings, and the approach to costs in family law motions.

This trial addressed two primary issues: whether the applicant (wife) was entitled to spousal support and whether the respondent (husband) had demonstrated a settled intention to treat the wife's two children from previous relationships as children of his family.

The court found that the husband had not demonstrated a settled intention to treat the children as his family, dismissing the wife's child support claim.

However, the court determined that the wife had established some compensatory entitlement to spousal support due to economic advantages conferred on the husband during their marriage and the immigration sponsorship process.

The quantum and duration of spousal support were referred back to the case management judge for determination.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking to suspend the respondent father's in-person parenting time with their two-year-old daughter due to concerns about the father's COVID-19 vaccination status and potential Helicobacter pylori infection.

The child has pre-existing medical conditions, including reactive airway disease/asthma.

The court found the father's one-line medical exemption note for a second vaccine dose insufficient and his evidence regarding hospitalization after the first dose lacking.

Prioritizing the child's physical safety, security, and well-being, the court varied the existing temporary parenting order, reducing the father's in-person time and imposing conditions for outdoor visits and H-pylori precautions.