Rayleen Cantin

The Respondent brought a motion seeking an order to compel an Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) clinician to attend for questioning and produce records related to an OCL report.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Respondent failed to satisfy the three-part test under Family Law Rule 20(5) for compelling a non-party's attendance.

Additionally, the Respondent had not filed a statement disputing the OCL report within the timelines required by Family Law Rule 21(e), rendering the report uncontested evidence.

The applicant mother brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the respondent father's motion to change existing custody and access orders.

The father alleged material changes in circumstances, including parental alienation, the mother's refusal to continue counselling for the children, and non-compliance with access orders.

The court found no direct evidence of alienating behaviour, no evidence that counselling was still required or recommended by professionals, and that the alleged access infractions were not sufficiently significant to constitute a material change in circumstances affecting the children's best interests.

The applicant's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the respondent's motion to change was dismissed.

The appellant father appealed a final order of custody granting care of his biological child to the maternal grandmother.

The child, who has Native status, was found in need of protection after the mother passed away.

The father argued the trial judge erred in applying the best interests test, weighing his criminal record, and assessing the grandmother's commitment to the child's cultural heritage.

The appeal court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge made no palpable and overriding errors and properly considered the child's Native status and best interests.

The applicant moved to remove the respondent's solicitor, Rayleen Cantin, on the grounds of a conflict of interest.

The applicant alleged that he had contacted Ms. Cantin's office on two occasions in May 2017, disclosing confidential information regarding criminal charges, bail conditions, his stance on allegations, his history with the respondent, and concerns about the respondent's parenting ability.

Ms. Cantin denied recalling any conversation with the applicant and deposed that she did not receive confidential information or provide legal advice.

The court found conflicting evidence but determined that the applicant failed to satisfy the balance of probabilities that confidential information was provided to Ms. Cantin.

The court applied the objective test of whether a fair-minded, reasonably informed member of the public would conclude that the proper administration of justice required removal of counsel, and found that removal was not warranted.

The respondent brought a motion to change child support provisions in a separation agreement, seeking to terminate his obligation to pay child support effective April 25, 2016 (when the child turned 18 and was not enrolled in full-time education), and to fix arrears at either nil or $5,450.83 with repayment at $150 per month.

The applicant, residing over 150 kilometres away, did not respond or appear.

The court proceeded under section 44 of the Family Law Act to issue a provisional order.

The court found the respondent's obligation to pay child support terminated on April 25, 2016, accepted his evidence that he paid support directly to the applicant (which was corroborated by two assignees rescinding their claims), and fixed arrears at $5,450.83 to be repaid at $300 per month based on the respondent's demonstrated ability to pay.

A temporary order was issued staying ongoing support obligations and the Support Deduction Order pending confirmation of the provisional order.

A child protection application brought by the Windsor-Essex Children's Aid Society seeking to place a child in the care of the mother with Society supervision and to restrict the father's access to supervised visits.

The father, a joint custodial parent under a prior family law order, opposed the motion and sought to maintain the existing shared custody arrangement.

The Society alleged risk of harm based on the father's recent criminal charges and convictions for indecent exposure and other sexual offences.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe there was risk of harm but determined that adequate protection could be achieved through supervision conditions rather than removal from the father's care.

The court ordered the child remain in the father's care on the existing schedule subject to strict supervision terms and conditions.

In this temporary care and custody hearing under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act, the court determined the placement of a newborn child following apprehension by the Society.

The Society sought placement with the paternal great aunt and her partner subject to supervision.

The paternal grandmother and her partner sought placement with themselves or alternatively expansive access.

The court found that the paternal grandmother alone had charge of the child immediately before apprehension and that there were reasonable grounds to believe the child would suffer harm if returned to her care due to her serious medical conditions and observations of her being overwhelmed.

However, the court found that supervision alone would not adequately protect the child.

The court ordered placement with the paternal great aunt and her partner, with the paternal grandmother having structured access and shared responsibility for medical care, recognizing the benefit of maintaining family connections while ensuring child protection.