Shuchanna Swaby

The mother (S.M.) brought a motion seeking access to and use of youth criminal justice records and Children's Aid Society (CAS) records concerning her child in ongoing child protection proceedings.

The court clarified that CAS records containing youth criminal involvement information are not Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) records and can be disclosed without a youth court order.

It also determined which specific YCJA records were relevant and necessary for use in the child protection proceedings, applying the Wagg and Bailey tests, emphasizing the paramount purpose of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA) to promote the best interests of children and the need for fulsome information before the court.

Following a trial on a motion to change spousal support where success was divided, the court determined costs.

The court found that the responding party, Ms. Craig, behaved unreasonably by seeking relief the court had no jurisdiction to grant, refusing to admit facts, and significantly lengthening the trial.

Despite her limited ability to pay, the court ordered her to pay $14,000 in costs to the moving party at a rate of $50 per month, which may be offset against any equalization owed to her.

The parties sought costs following motions regarding parenting time and COVID-19 protocols.

The respondent mother sought full indemnity costs, arguing the applicant father acted in bad faith by unilaterally withholding the child contrary to their separation agreement.

The court found the respondent was the successful party but declined to award full indemnity costs, concluding the father's actions, while unreasonable and demonstrating bad judgment, were motivated by his immunocompromised status rather than malice.

The court awarded the respondent partial indemnity costs fixed at $6,000.

The respondent husband brought a motion to change a final order, seeking to terminate spousal support after paying for over 18 years.

The applicant wife opposed the motion and sought an increase in support, among other relief.

The court determined the date of separation was late October 2002.

On consent, the parties agreed to continue support at $1,200 per month until January 2024, and terminate support entirely when the wife turns 65 in July 2025.

The court ordered support to be reduced to $600 per month for the interim period between February 2024 and July 2025.

The husband was also ordered to maintain a reducing amount of life insurance naming the wife as irrevocable beneficiary, but his obligation to pay her Trillium Drug Program deductible was terminated.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion prior to a case conference seeking various orders related to COVID-19 protocols, child counselling, mediation, and enforcement of a separation agreement.

The applicant, who is immunocompromised, sought to prevent the respondent mother from working or using third-party childcare while the child was in her care, and sought to subject the child to frequent asymptomatic COVID-19 testing.

The court dismissed the requests for counselling, mediation, and OCL involvement as not urgent.

The court temporarily relieved the respondent from the separation agreement clause preventing her from working, finding it in the child's best interests that she earn an income.

The court permitted the applicant to have the child tested for COVID-19 upon return to his care, but denied his request for more frequent discretionary testing.

The applicant brought a motion to incorporate and enforce the terms of interim and final family arbitration awards.

The respondent, who was self-represented, requested an adjournment which was denied.

The court granted the motion, incorporating the arbitration awards into a court order and directing the respondent to comply within ten days.

The court also dispensed with the respondent's consent for the release of funds held in an Australian bank and ordered the respondent to provide disclosure regarding the sale of the former matrimonial home.

The applicant mother brought a motion for a sealing order and publication ban regarding her family law file following the highly public suicide of the respondent father, who died in a car explosion outside the courthouse.

Several media outlets intervened to oppose a broad ban.

The court applied the Dagenais-Mentuck-Sierra Club test, balancing the open court principle against the risk of harm to the children.

The court denied a complete sealing order but granted a tailored publication ban protecting the identities and personal information of the children, the mother, and extended family, and ordered the file to be initialized.