Ross Stewart

The applicant father brought a motion to change seeking to terminate child support for his adult daughter, who has severe developmental disabilities, and to terminate his contribution to section 7 expenses.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, arguing the daughter remained a child of the marriage and that table support was appropriate despite her receipt of ODSP benefits.

The court found the daughter was a child of the marriage and, after conducting a means and needs analysis, concluded the presumptive table amount was appropriate.

The court dismissed the father's requests to terminate section 7 expenses and to vary access, increased his monthly arrears repayment rate, and ordered him to pay costs for a previously withdrawn motion.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking Crown wardship without access for three children.

The children had been apprehended due to physical abuse and had significant special needs.

The father opposed the motion, arguing he could parent the children and challenging the society's evidence regarding his behaviour during access visits.

The court applied the summary judgment framework and found no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated that the father could not meet the children's complex needs and that Crown wardship without access for the purpose of adoption was in their best interests.

The moving party, the deceased's grandson and sole beneficiary, sought to be appointed as estate trustee pursuant to the deceased's will.

The respondent, who claimed to be the deceased's secret spouse, objected to the appointment based on the moving party's criminal record and a conflict of interest, as the respondent intended to make equalization and support claims against the estate.

The court found that while the moving party's criminal past alone might not disqualify him, his position as sole beneficiary created a significant conflict of interest with the respondent's claims against the estate.

The court passed over the moving party and appointed the lawyer who drafted the will as an independent estate trustee.

Following a bifurcated family law and civil assault trial, the court determined the appropriate costs award between the parties.

The respondent succeeded on a damages claim arising from an assault and obtained damages, future care costs, and prejudgment interest, while the applicant obtained a modest additional equalization payment relating to disputed chattels.

The court considered offers to settle, the parties’ conduct under the Family Law Rules, and the proportionality of costs to the issues and outcome.

Full indemnity costs were declined because the result was less favourable than an earlier formal offer to settle.

The court awarded substantial partial indemnity costs for the damages claim, offset by limited costs payable to the applicant for the chattels claim and an adjournment caused by deficient pleadings.

The child protection agency brought a summary judgment motion seeking a final order placing a child in the custody of the maternal grandfather under s. 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The child had lived with the grandfather under society supervision for over three years and was doing well in that placement.

One parent opposed the motion and sought delay to demonstrate rehabilitation from substance abuse and criminal issues, arguing the matter should proceed to trial.

The court held that the responding party failed to demonstrate a genuine issue requiring a trial under Rule 16 and that the child’s need for permanency and stability outweighed the request for additional time.

Summary judgment was granted placing the child in the grandfather’s sole custody with parental access at the grandfather’s discretion.

The parties separated after a short-term marriage following an incident where the respondent suffered a severely fractured wrist.

The trial addressed the division of net family property, specifically missing items the applicant claimed were in the respondent's possession, and the respondent's civil claim for damages for assault and battery.

The court found the applicant failed to prove the respondent retained most of the missing property, but added $10,000 to the equalization payment for missing silver.

On the tort claim, the court found the applicant committed battery by throwing the respondent out of the house, causing her injury.

The court awarded the respondent $65,000 in general and aggravated damages, $25,000 for loss of competitive advantage, and specific future care costs to be calculated.