The applicant father sought to proceed with a scheduled custody and access trial under the Divorce Act, while the respondent mother and the Children's Aid Society sought a stay due to newly commenced child protection proceedings involving allegations of abuse.
The court found that while s. 103 of the CYFSA does not automatically stay Divorce Act proceedings, the court has inherent jurisdiction and authority under Rule 2 of the Family Law Rules to grant a stay.
The court ordered the family proceedings stayed pending the completion of the child protection proceedings to avoid duplicity and allow the CAS to complete its investigation.
