Phaedra Klodner

This decision concerns an application by J.D.S. to adopt A.A., a child with complex medical and developmental needs, and the subsequent motion by P.E., the biological father, to withdraw his previously given consent to the adoption.

The court reviews the statutory framework under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and applies the best interests of the child test.

The court finds that P.E. had capacity and was fully informed when he gave consent, and that his later dissatisfaction with parenting time arrangements does not vitiate that consent.

The court concludes that it is not in A.A.'s best interests to permit P.E. to withdraw his consent, given her strong bond with J.D.S. and her siblings, her special needs, and the lack of insight or planning by P.E. regarding her care.

The Openness Agreement remains in effect, and the parties are ordered to communicate via a parenting app.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a family law trial.

The applicant, Rona Elizabeth Scott, sought full recovery of her legal costs on the basis that the respondent, Thomas Ryan Scott, acted in bad faith by advancing a baseless claim that the applicant was secretly an internet porn star, which the court found to be "patently ridiculous." The court found that the applicant was successful on virtually every issue, and that the respondent's conduct met the definition of bad faith, warranting a full recovery of costs.

Costs were fixed at $57,800, payable by the respondent forthwith.

The mother (S.M.) brought a motion seeking access to and use of youth criminal justice records and Children's Aid Society (CAS) records concerning her child in ongoing child protection proceedings.

The court clarified that CAS records containing youth criminal involvement information are not Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) records and can be disclosed without a youth court order.

It also determined which specific YCJA records were relevant and necessary for use in the child protection proceedings, applying the Wagg and Bailey tests, emphasizing the paramount purpose of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA) to promote the best interests of children and the need for fulsome information before the court.

The parties separated in 2016 and had two children.

In 2019, one of the children tragically died after being accidentally run over by the respondent's truck.

The respondent brought a motion to change the existing parenting order, seeking week-about parenting time for the surviving child.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the respondent failed to prove a material change in circumstances that would justify altering the status quo.

The court further held that, even if the threshold was met, a week-about schedule was not in the child's best interests due to the child's need for stability, the respondent's lack of respect for the applicant's role as custodial parent, and the respondent's failure to pay child support.

The applicant was granted sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, with the respondent having alternate weekend parenting time and one mid-week visit.

The respondent was also ordered to pay child support and arrears.

Following a summary judgment motion in a child protection proceeding where the children were placed in the mother's custody, the mother sought costs of $4,000 from the father.

The mother argued the father was extremely unreasonable in proposing the children live with his sister.

The court reviewed the jurisprudence on costs in child protection matters, noting that costs between parents are only awarded in rare and exceptional circumstances involving bad faith or extreme unreasonableness.

The court found that while the father's position was unreasonable, it did not reach the threshold required to order costs in a child protection proceeding, and dismissed the mother's request.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion seeking to enroll the parties' two children in in-person school, contrary to the applicant mother's unilateral decision to enroll them in virtual learning.

The court granted leave to hear the motion prior to a case conference due to the impasse between the joint custodial parents.

Applying the best interests of the child test in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the court found that the risk of the virus to the healthy children was extremely low and ordered that they attend school in person.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that two children were in need of protection and an order placing them in the custody of their mother.

The father, who was facing criminal charges related to his older daughter and had bail conditions preventing contact with the children, opposed the motion.

The court applied the test for summary judgment in child protection cases and found no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court found the children in need of protection due to the father's unavailability and the risk of emotional harm.

The children were placed in the custody of the mother, with access to the father and their half-sister to be at the children's wishes and the mother's discretion.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking an order to permit him to travel with the parties' child to Croatia for three weeks.

The respondent mother consented to a two-week trip but opposed the three-week duration, citing concerns about the child's routine, lost parenting time, and adjustment to Junior Kindergarten.

The court, applying the "best interests of the child" test, found no plausible risk in the three-week trip and emphasized the child's opportunity to connect with his heritage and extended family.

The motion was granted, allowing the father to travel for three weeks, with conditions for the mother to have additional time upon return.

The father was denied costs due to his unilateral booking of the trip and delay in bringing the motion.

Following a nine-day family law trial, the court determined the appropriate costs award between the parties.

Although both parties had exchanged settlement offers, neither was sufficiently advantageous to trigger substantial indemnity costs under the applicable principles.

The court found that the respondent father was significantly more successful on the primary issues at trial and that the trial was unnecessarily prolonged due to the applicant mother's unwillingness to make reasonable concessions.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court ordered the mother to pay the father's costs in the fixed amount of $12,000.

The court directed that the costs be applied to reduce the equalization payment owed by the father rather than to his support obligations in order to avoid negative impacts on the children.

Supplementary reasons were issued to correct and clarify aspects of an earlier family law decision released March 14, 2013.

The court amended two portions of the earlier judgment by correcting a monetary figure and a date referenced in the reasons.

The court also clarified parenting arrangements by ordering that the mother have access to the children of the marriage for a two-week period during summer school vacations.

These supplementary reasons were provided following counsel’s appearance to address the necessary corrections and clarifications.

The parties separated after a 12-year marriage with four children.

The mother sought sole custody, limited access for the father, and significant equalization and support payments.

The court ordered joint custody, finding the mother had attempted to minimize the father's relationship with the children.

The court expanded the father's access and imputed an annual income of $40,000 to the mother, a qualified teacher, due to intentional underemployment.

The father was ordered to pay child support, a time-limited spousal support of $250 per month, and an equalization payment of $63,419.27, subject to deductions for credits and prior costs.

The appellant appealed the judgment of the lower court.

The Court of Appeal found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, awarding costs of $4,000 to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal issued an endorsement on costs following an appeal and stay application regarding child custody.

The court ordered no costs for either the stay application or the appeal, noting that both parties have modest resources and custodial responsibilities for the child, and neither should have their resources depleted to pay costs to the other.

The mother appealed a trial decision granting primary residence of the child to the father.

The parties had previously shared a split residence arrangement, which both agreed was no longer in the child's best interests as he approached school age.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's conclusion, which relied on the stability of the father's home, the supportiveness of the father's family, and the strong relationship between the child and the paternal grandmother.

The appeal was dismissed.