Paul Fox

This family law trial involved a separated cohabiting couple with one child, addressing issues of custody, access, child and spousal support, and division of property.

The court found the respondent's financial disclosure inadequate and dishonest, imputing an income of $150,000/year to him.

The applicant was granted sole custody, with the respondent receiving specified access.

No spousal support was awarded as both parties were deemed self-supporting.

Child support was ordered at $1263/month plus $500/month for section 7 expenses, with 10 years of future support secured from the respondent's share of the notional proceeds from the sale of the jointly owned home, due to his history of non-compliance.

The jointly owned property was valued, and various adjustments were made to the parties' respective shares.

The applicant society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order for crown wardship of a medically fragile child diagnosed with Congenital Myasthenic Syndrome.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking to have the child placed in her care.

The court found that despite the mother's love for the child, she was unable to present a concrete, viable plan to meet the child's complex medical needs, which required specialized equipment, trained caregivers, and appropriate housing.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial, and made the child a crown ward with access at the society's discretion.

In this child protection summary judgment motion, the Catholic Children's Aid Society sought an order making a child with a rare medical condition (Congenital Myasthenic Syndrome) a crown ward.

The child had been in the society's care for over two years following a finding of need for protection.

The mother opposed the motion and sought to resume care with proposed supports including daycare, trained caregivers, and night nursing.

The court found that despite the mother's genuine love for the child and her completion of medical training, she had failed to present a concrete and viable plan to meet the child's complex medical needs over the two-year period.

The court granted the society's motion and made the child a crown ward with access to the mother in the society's discretion.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection and an order for Crown wardship without access.

The mother opposed the motion, proposing a plan to care for the child with a new partner.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, relying on recent findings from a previous proceeding involving the mother's older child, which established her lack of parenting capacity and poor judgment.

The court concluded the mother's proposed plan was unrealistic and that the child was in need of protection.

Crown wardship without access was ordered to facilitate adoption.