Richard Chatelain

The moving party mother sought a two-hour motion but delivered her voluminous materials, including a new contempt motion, only days before the hearing.

The court granted an adjournment due to the late delivery, which caused an egregious waste of court time.

The mother requested reunification therapy as a term of the adjournment, which the court declined, instead ordering both parents to obtain medical letters from the child's psychiatrist and physician.

The court also dismissed issues in the motion to change pertaining to the older child who is no longer a minor, ordered the matter to trial, and ordered the mother to pay $1,500 in costs for the adjournment.

The respondent filed a motion regarding a prior endorsement that dealt with the applicant's motion to sever the divorce from other issues.

The respondent had not initially responded to the applicant's motion but now sought to contest it and requested more time to obtain counsel.

The respondent failed to specify the orders sought in his motion.

The court dismissed the motion as unfounded, noting that a motion failing to specify the orders sought constitutes a waste of time or an abuse of process under Rule 1(8.2) of the Family Law Rules, and that the court has the right to rule on the merits of a motion without obtaining a response from the opposing party.

The applicant father brought a motion to modify his access schedule to his four-year-old daughter following a change in his work schedule.

He also raised concerns about the respondent mother's refusal to communicate and her attempts to alienate him, including making unfounded allegations to the Children's Aid Society.

The court found that the mother's actions were not in the child's best interests and that the father offered a loving and safe home.

The court ordered a progressive parenting schedule that will culminate in a 50/50 shared custody arrangement.

The court also relieved the father from paying daycare arrears due to the mother's failure to cooperate in providing necessary financial information.

The applicant Children's Aid Society sought an order making three children Crown wards without access for the purpose of adoption.

The respondent parents opposed the application, seeking the return of the children or, alternatively, placement of the eldest child with the paternal grandparents.

The court found the children to be in need of protection due to a history of domestic violence, substance abuse, and lack of parenting capacity, which resulted in significant emotional and behavioral issues for the children.

The court admitted the children's out-of-court statements under the principled approach to hearsay.

Concluding that the parents and grandparents could not meet the children's special needs, the court ordered Crown wardship without access to facilitate adoption.

In a child protection status review under the Child and Family Services Act, the child protection agency sought a Crown wardship order for two young children with a view to adoption.

The mother sought the return of the children to her care with assistance from the maternal grandmother, while one father supported that position and alternatively requested an extension of statutory timelines.

After hearing extensive evidence from agency workers, foster parents, and family members, the court found the children continued to be in need of protection due to persistent concerns regarding parental capacity, safety of the home environment, substance use, and lack of cooperation with the agency.

The court concluded that the proposed family care plans were not realistic and would expose the children to continued instability and risk.

The children were therefore made Crown wards without access, enabling adoption planning to proceed.

Child protection agency sought summary judgment declaring three children in need of protection and requesting permanent Crown wardship for twin infants.

The evidence included medical findings of multiple fractures consistent with physical abuse inflicted while the children were in the care of the mother and her partner, along with evidence of parental instability and limited parenting capacity.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the twins’ protection status and their best interests, and found that adoption planning through Crown wardship was appropriate.

However, the court determined that a trial was required to decide the appropriate long‑term placement for the older child.

The biological father of the twins was permitted to participate and propose a care plan.

A motion and cross‑motion addressed whether a parent must contribute child support for an adult child pursuing post‑secondary education.

The respondent argued the adult child had withdrawn from parental control and squandered prior educational opportunities, while also asserting inability to pay.

The court found the adult child had not withdrawn from parental control and was enrolled in a serious course of studies.

Applying principles from the Family Law Act and the Child Support Guidelines, the court ordered ongoing support based on the respondent’s income together with contributions from the applicant and the child.

Conditions were imposed requiring proof of attendance, disclosure of income and educational progress.