Rachael Louise Eynon

The applicant brought a motion to annul the respondent’s assignment into bankruptcy, arguing it was filed to stay ongoing family law proceedings and avoid an equalization payment.

The court examined the respondent’s financial circumstances and the timing of the bankruptcy filing under s. 181(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the principles governing abuse of process.

The respondent had relatively modest debts, significant equity in the matrimonial home, and exempt assets including a pension and RRSPs, indicating he was solvent.

The court concluded that the assignment was motivated by an attempt to derail the family litigation and evade equalization obligations.

The bankruptcy was annulled and property was vested in the applicant to facilitate payment of legitimate creditors and advance the equalization process.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of a custody application and a family adoption application, as well as the granting of a restraining order.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, finding that the Child and Family Services Act precluded the custody application and that the Crown wardship order and adoption placement precluded the family adoption application.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

Addendum regarding costs following an appeal in a child protection matter.

The Divisional Court considered the submissions of the parties and the factors set out in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The court concluded that this was an appropriate case to not require the unsuccessful party to pay costs.

No costs were ordered.

The Children's Lawyer appealed a trial judge's decision to return two children to their mother under a strict 12-month supervision order, rather than making them Crown wards without access.

The appellant argued the trial judge failed to apply the paramount 'best interests of the child' test and made palpable and overriding errors in fact-finding regarding the parents' ability to protect the children from the father, who had been diagnosed with pedophilia.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge was acutely sensitive to the risks, properly balanced the children's best interests with maintaining the family unit, and made no palpable or overriding errors.