3 total
The court upheld a cohabitation agreement releasing spousal support and affirmed child support income imputations.
The appellant wife appealed the trial judge's decision upholding a cohabitation agreement that released her claims to spousal support and the determination of income for child support purposes.
The parties had signed the agreement before marriage, whereby the wife released all claims to spousal support.
Upon separation after an 18-year relationship and two children, the wife sought spousal support.
The trial judge upheld the agreement and dismissed her claim.
The Court of Appeal applied the two-stage Miglin test and found no error of law or misapprehension of fact.
The court upheld the trial judge's findings regarding the circumstances of the agreement's execution and its substantial compliance with the Divorce Act objectives.
The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the husband.
Summary judgment denied in child protection case due to multiple genuine issues for trial.
The applicant children’s aid society brought a summary judgment motion within a status review proceeding relating to a prior Crown wardship with access order.
The society argued that the Crown wardship component of the consent order was final and that only the access terms could be reviewed, seeking amendment of the access provisions to facilitate adoption placement.
The respondent parents contended that they consented to the order on the understanding that the children could be returned to them after demonstrating stable housing and parenting capacity.
The court held that several genuine issues for trial existed, including the interpretation of the consent Crown wardship order, the circumstances of the parents’ consent, and the children’s best interests regarding possible return to parental care or adoption.
Summary judgment was refused and the matter was directed to proceed to trial.
Judicial review of Board's decision to rescind adoption refusal dismissed; Board has substantive best interests mandate.
The applicant Children's Aid Society sought judicial review of a decision by the Child and Family Services Review Board.
The Board had rescinded the Society's decision to refuse an adoption application by the respondent foster parents.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's mandate under s. 144 of the Child and Family Services Act allows it to make substantive determinations regarding the best interests of the child, rather than being limited to procedural fairness.
The Court determined the standard of review was reasonableness and found the Board's decision to place the children for adoption with the respondents was reasonable.
