ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, FAMILY COURT
BETWEEN:
K-J. Y
Applicant
– and –
J.C
Respondent
Self-represented
Self-represented
HEARD: May 4, 2026
ENDORSEMENT
Justice N. Edmundson
Overview
1This event was scheduled for the applicant mother’s motion under Family Law Rule 19(11) for production of the medical records of a child who turned 18 during the litigation. The parents are both self-represented. The adult daughter (“H. Y-C.”)1 was present, is not represented and objects to any of her information being released to the mother. She has served and filed an affidavit.
2I have case managed this file. The parties confirmed on the record that I have not previously given an opinion at a settlement conference about the issues expected to be before the court, that is the production of an adult child’s medical records within the context of a claim for a parenting order under the Children’s Law Reform Act.
3The motion date was set by Tellier, J, in her supplementary endorsement of March 2, 2026. The filing deadlines were extended by my endorsement of April 16, 2026, following the mother’s request submitted by way of a 14B Motion Form.
4Despite the extension of time the applicant has not filed a Notice of Motion for today’s event.
5The affidavit of service which the applicant filed with the court refers to the 14B Motion Form signed March 17, 2026, which was for the extension of time. That Motion Form was served on the father and H. Y-C. and, according to the mother (and as set out in her affidavit of service) was served on Dr. Perrier, H. Y-C’s general practitioner. The mother passed up to the court today the unserved Notice of Motion signed March 13, 2026, and a copy of the 14B Motion Form. Her copy of the 14B Motion Form had 4 pages attached setting out the same relief that she requested in the unserved Notice of Motion. The father and adult daughter state that they were not served with those additional 4 pages and the copy filed with the court does not include those 4 pages. The mother acknowledges that the Notice of Motion which she passed up today was not served on Dr. Perrier, H. Y-C., or the respondent father. I did not accept that unserved Notice of Motion for filing.
6I find that while Dr. Perrier had notice of the applicant’s request for an extension of time to serve and file her motion for the production of records, she does not have notice of the actual motion and relief sought including the production of the medical records. There is no affidavit of service for any other 3rd party records’ holder filed with the court.
Background and History of the Proceeding
7The Application before the court is an amended Application including claims for decision-making for H. Y-C., parenting time, child support, spousal support, an equalization of net family properties and a constructive trust claim related to a truck that both parties acknowledge has no current value.
8The date of cohabitation is January 1, 1997, and the date of separation is May 26, 2017. The parties were not married. The parties were previously advised that the equalization claim could not proceed as the parties were not married.
9The father filed an Answer dated October 31, 2024, which included a claim for child support under the Divorce Act. The parties acknowledge that the wrong box on the Answer form was checked off as the parties were not married. In court I referred to the mother checking off the wrong box, but it was the father.
10A Voice of the Child report (VOC) dated January, 2025, confirms that H. Y-C. wants no contact with her mother at this time and that while her father has told her about the court case, her views are independently held.
11H. Y-C. turned 18 in July 2025; the mother maintains that her daughter lacks capacity and that therefore it is open to the court to make the parenting orders she requests. H. Y-C. has graduated from high school and the VOC report dated January 2025 states that she is high functioning with autism but no developmental delays and that her wish not to see her mother is independently held. The mother had planned to bring a motion regarding the child’s capacity scheduled for July 2026 as set out in the March 2, 2026 endorsement of Tellier J.
12In the meantime and as a precursor to the possible capacity motion, we have the applicant mother’s Rule 19 motion for production of the adult daughter’s medical records. H.Y-C. and father object to an order for production of the medical records or any other records about her.
13The existing final order was made by Justice Deluzio on January 24, 2019, within Child Protection proceedings and granted sole custody (under the Child Youth and Family Services Act, 2017) to H. Y-C’s father, J.C. H. Y-C. was 11 at that time. Section 102(2) of CYFSA provides that an order made under s.102 of CYFSA is deemed to be an order under s.28 of the Children’s Law Reform Act. The parties confirm that they were never married and that the current Application as it refers to parenting issues was brought under the CLRA.
14The operative parenting order made in 2019 under s.102 of CYFSA grants sole custody to the father and provides that he is to provide to the mother educational and medical information about the child. The order has not been varied. There were then, and are now, suggestions of Munchausen by Proxy for the mother. The order provides that the mother is not to attend at or near the father’s residence or the child’s school. Additionally, any access was to remain supervised at a Supervised Access Service (SAS) with a restriction that the father is not to allow it to become unsupervised or move from the SAS, without one of the parties bringing it back to court. Phone calls were allowed but over time the child declined to participate. H. Y-C. has been in her father’s sole care since May 2017. She initially saw her mother at the SAS but has not seen her in the last six years.
Jurisdiction
15Subsection 18(3) of the Children’s Law Reform Act sets out that a reference in this Part to a child is a reference to the child while a minor. Section 1 of Ontario’s Age of Majority and Accountability Act provides that every person attains the age of majority and ceases to be a minor on attaining the age of eighteen years. On a straight reading this means that parenting orders cannot be made under the CLRA once the person is 18.
16This is different than in the Divorce Act, where a child of the marriage includes a person over the age of majority and under the spouse’s charge, but unable, by reason of illness, disability or other cause to withdraw from their charge or to obtain the necessaries of life. Caselaw, including from the Ontario Court of Appeal, sets out the process for assessing the capacity of adult children under the Divorce Act; as it is not relevant to this case, a review of that caselaw is not included here.
17Having considered the obligations on the court set out in Rule 2(2), (3), (4) and (5), and despite the lack of service of the Notice of Motion, I advised the parties that following a recess I would be asking them to provide me with their submissions on whether the court has jurisdiction to make a parenting order and to consider a records motion that has at the heart of it a determination of the adult child’s capacity. If I determined that there is jurisdiction then I would consider whether a new date should be set following proper service.
18I provided references to s.18(3) of the CLRA and s.1 of Ontario’s Age of Majority and Accountability Act, (AMAA) and read both sections to the parties prior to the recess. I explained that the provisions of the Divorce Act are different to the CLRA in the way that each statute defines a “child” with the Divorce Act having an expanded definition that includes a child who is over the age of majority in defined circumstances. Each parent had their laptop or other device with them.
19Following the recess, the mother made submissions that the court does have jurisdiction over and could make a parenting order, that I should exercise my parens patriae powers and that an assessment under s.79 of the Substitute Decisions Act and/or records production under FLR 19(11) should be ordered for H. Y-C. to allow the mother to advance her position that H. Y-C. lacks capacity. She also advanced the position that H. Y-C. is in receipt of ODSP which, she stated, demonstrates that she does not have capacity. The applicant mother is also in receipt of ODSP. I do not accept that the source of a person’s income (i.e. the simple fact of being an ODSP recipient) demonstrates anything about a person’s capacity in the absence of other evidence.
20The mother did not otherwise address the combined content of s.18(3) of the CLRA and s.1 of the AMAA, and the impact of a straight reading of those sections on whether the court has jurisdiction to make a parenting order and therefore a production order.
21The father made submissions that H. Y-C. is no longer a child under the CLRA, that the court does not have jurisdiction to determine parenting terms under the CLRA, that she has rights as an adult and that her records should not be released.
22H. Y-C. made submissions that she does not agree to the release of her records, that her medical records are personal to her and that her expectation is that she has rights which, in the current context, I understand to mean that she has the right to privacy and to the rights of an adult.
23As I have set out above, the current order is a deemed order under the CLRA, the parties were never married and the Divorce Act does not apply. This is important given the different definition of a child under each Act.
24I find that the court has no jurisdiction to make parenting orders under the CLRA as H. Y-C. is now 18. As the court has no jurisdiction to make a parenting order, I find that there is also no jurisdiction to make a production order for H. Y-C’s medical records.
Outstanding Claims and Next Steps
25I canvassed with the parties whether any issues remain outstanding. The applicant wishes to advance her claim for spousal support. The respondent wishes to advance his claim for retroactive child support.
26The lack of Application of the CLRA to an adult child does not negate the child support obligation under Part III of the Family Law Act. The involvement of H. Y-C. is not required as those claims are between the parties only, do not impact upon her autonomy and shall proceed without her involvement.
27When this Application was brought there was no reference to the existence of the 2019 order. I rely on FLRule 2(2) to (5) and by fiat convert the Amended Application to a Motion to Change which shall proceed in writing under Rule 15. The Amended Application of the applicant shall constitute the Motion to Change and the Answer of the respondent shall constitute the Response to the Motion to Change. The respondent’s claim for child support shall proceed under the provincial legislation.
28The Motion to Change shall be heard on July 30, 2026, at 2pm in lieu of the motion regarding capacity which is no longer required. It shall be subject to the litigation schedule set out below. The trial time reserved for September 16, 2026, is hereby vacated.
29Again, I encourage both parties to seek legal advice. I stressed to the applicant that her claim regarding the truck is outside the limitation period. She is adamant that she wishes to pursue it. She should also be aware that a decision to pursue that issue is likely to incur cost consequences. If she does pursue it, she is directed to provide caselaw.
30The parties were not in a position to address costs of this matter today. If the parties cannot agree on the issue of costs for today then they may make submissions in writing as set out in my order below.
ORDER
Pursuant to Family Law Rule 2, the Amended Application is converted to and shall proceed as a Motion to Change which shall proceed in writing under Rule 15 subject to the discretion of the Judge hearing the Motion to Change. The Amended Application of Ms. K-J. Y. shall constitute the Motion to Change and the Answer of Mr. J. C. shall constitute the Response to the Motion to Change. The respondent’s claim for child support shall proceed under the Family Law Act and the Ontario Child Support Guidelines and not the Divorce Act.
The applicant’s claim for a parenting order under the CLRA is dismissed.
The applicant did not serve and file a Notice of Motion seeking the production of third-party records. No further Motions shall be brought in this proceeding for the production of records for the purpose of seeking a parenting order or assessing the capacity of the adult daughter, H. Y-C.
The Motion to Change shall be heard on July 30, 2026, at 2pm in lieu of the motion regarding capacity which is no longer required. It shall be subject to the litigation schedule set out below.
The affidavit of the applicant, an updated financial statement and any caselaw on which she relies as well as a draft order for the relief that she seeks, shall be served on the respondent and filed on or before May 29, 2026.
The affidavit of the respondent, an updated financial statement, any caselaw on which he relies as well as a draft order for the relief he seeks shall be served on the applicant and filed on or before June 30, 2026.
A reply affidavit, if any, may be served and filed by the applicant 7 days in advance of the hearing.
If any party is represented by counsel that counsel shall file a factum no later than four days before the scheduled hearing of the Motion.
The parties are restricted to 20 pages of narrative contained in their Affidavit and 15 pages of exhibits, plus a 5-page reply (plus 5 pages of exhibits) or a 5-page third party affidavit (plus 5 pages of exhibits). The content of the affidavit shall be limited to evidence that is relevant to the issues before the court at the hearing, being spousal and retroactive child support.
Certain documents do not count in the exhibit page limits as set out in the Consolidated Provincial Practice Directions.
All Affidavits shall be 12-point font and double spaced.
If a party retains counsel, that counsel shall upload documents to Case Centre once notified that the motions bundle has been created by Court Administration. Documents for Self-Represented litigants shall be uploaded to Case Centre by the filing office. All exhibits and caselaw shall be hyperlinked.
If the motion material does not comply with these guidelines, the non-compliant party risks the motion proceeding without their material being considered by the Court.
Strict compliance with the Rules of Court and this Order is expected.
Materials shall include draft Orders (copies also attached to the 14C Confirmation Form and uploaded to Case Centre).
The Court may determine the motion on the written record, by limiting submissions to responses to questions, may opt for oral submissions or may invite viva voce testimony.
Parties should be prepared to argue costs orally at the motion (5 minutes each side).
The trial time reserved for September 16, 2026, is hereby vacated.
If the parties cannot agree on the issue of costs for today, they may file written submissions, as follows:
- The respondent shall serve and file written submissions on the other party within 10 days of this decision being released
- The applicant shall serve and file written submissions on the other party within 15 days of this decision being released.
- Submissions shall be limited to three pages, double spaced and using 12 point font, exclusive of the Bill of Costs and Offers to Settle. All documents shall be uploaded to Case Centre.
- There shall be no right of Reply.
- If neither party files written submissions within the above time limits, the issue of costs for this appearance shall be deemed to have been settled or abandoned.
Released: May 6, 2026 N. Edmundson, J
CITATION: K-J. Y v. J.C, 2026 ONSC 2710
COURT FILE NO.: FC-23-00000205-0000
DATE: 2026/05/06
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY COURT
B E T W E E N :
K-J. Y
Applicant
- and -
J.C
Respondent
ENDORSEMENT
Edmundson J.
Released: May 6, 2026