Samantha Prescott

The applicant sought an order for production of financial disclosure from third parties (the respondent's father, family corporations, and a family trust) pursuant to the Family Law Rules and Rules of Civil Procedure.

The applicant and respondent are involved in family proceedings concerning child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The applicant sought to set aside a domestic contract and alleged the respondent's reported income had declined significantly post-separation despite evidence of substantially higher cash flow during the marriage.

The third parties opposed production, arguing the motion was premature and that the domestic contract must first be set aside.

The court found the motion was not premature, that the applicant had met her onus, and that disclosure was necessary to fairly determine the respondent's true income and net family property.

The court ordered production of financial statements and corporate tax returns from the companies and details of non-arm's length expenses from all third parties, subject to confidentiality terms.

The applicant father sought enforcement of a previous order regarding virtual parenting time and a change to his interim in-person supervised parenting time.

The court found the respondent mother in non-compliance with the virtual parenting order and imposed a monetary penalty of $250.

The court maintained supervised in-person parenting time for the father due to ongoing concerns about his substance abuse and criminal charges, prioritizing the children's physical, emotional, and psychological safety.

A new, more appropriate virtual parenting schedule was also established by consent.

The father sought to strike the mother's pleadings or obtain summary judgment due to her protracted non-compliance with disclosure orders regarding s. 7 expenses and income.

The court found the mother in breach of disclosure orders but declined to strike pleadings, opting for a costs order and a restriction on future s. 7 claims.

The motion for summary judgment on spousal support was dismissed due to unresolved income accuracy issues.

The motion for summary judgment on s. 7 expenses was partially granted, dismissing the mother's claim for a new payment method, but denying summary judgment on the father's claim for retroactive reduction due to credibility issues requiring oral evidence.

This decision addresses whether a previous costs award of $34,800, ordered against the Applicant for breaches of parenting orders, could be characterized as support for enforcement purposes under the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996.

The Respondent argued that the costs related to child support issues in an underlying, outstanding motion to change, and that the broad discretion under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules permitted such characterization, asserting that Clark v. Clark was overruled by Bouchard v. Sgovio.

The court dismissed the Respondent's request, holding that for costs to be enforceable as support, support must have been claimed and adjudicated in the specific proceeding where the costs were awarded, not merely in a related, outstanding motion.

The court affirmed that Rule 1(8) does not allow for characterizing costs in a manner inconsistent with the substance of the proceeding in which they were awarded, and that Bouchard did not overrule Clark on this point.

The paternal grandparents brought a motion to be added as party respondents in a child protection proceeding under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The grandparents had been caring for the child for approximately 17 months under a temporary care and custody order.

The parents opposed the motion, while the society took no position.

The court granted the motion, finding that the grandparents qualified as statutory "parents" under the Act and met the established criteria for party status.

The court emphasized the importance of considering kinship placements and the best interests of the child, particularly given the grandparents' demonstrated capacity to care for the child.

The Children's Aid Society appealed a temporary care order returning a child to the mother and sought a stay of that order pending appeal.

The court applied the three-part test for a stay, focusing on whether there was a serious issue to be tried.

The court found the Society failed to establish a serious issue, concluding that the motion judge's finding of speculative risk was entitled to deference and that the child could be adequately protected by a supervision order.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.