Shannon Dale Crawford

The Highland Shores Children’s Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion in a Status Review Application, seeking sole custody of the child B.B. to his paternal grandparents.

The respondent mother opposed, arguing for genuine issues requiring a trial and seeking B.B.'s return to her care or placement with maternal grandparents.

The court found B.B. remained in need of protection and granted custody to the paternal grandparents, citing the mother's inconsistent access, unhealthy relationships, and lack of insight.

However, the court determined that issues regarding parental access, decision-making authority, and sibling access required a focused hearing, dismissing the mother's requests for a Children's Lawyer appointment and a Parenting Capacity Assessment as unnecessary for the custody determination.

This is a costs endorsement following the court's dismissal of the respondent father's application to change a custody order.

The applicant mother, as the successful party, sought costs under Family Law Rule 24(1).

The court awarded costs of $2,000.00 plus disbursements of $1,304.40 for police occurrence reports, payable within 120 days.

The court declined to award costs for proceedings before other judges where costs were not reserved, and rejected the mother's request for additional costs based on alleged re-victimization, finding no authority for such damages in a costs decision.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a 2013 custody order that granted sole custody to the mother with no access to the father.

The father sought alternate weekend access and equal holiday parenting time.

The court applied the two-stage test from Gordon v. Goertz, requiring the father to first establish a material change in circumstances affecting the child's best interests.

Although the father demonstrated positive life changes including stable employment and a committed relationship, the court found no material change in circumstances that was not foreseeable at the time of the original order.

The court was particularly concerned about the father's history of domestic violence, threats against the mother, breach of the restraining order, ongoing conflict in subsequent relationships, lack of insight into his behaviour, and his previous abandonment of supervised access.

The application was dismissed.