Tammy W. Law

A pre-trial motion concerning the admissibility and use of will-say statements prepared by counsel for the applicant's witnesses.

The respondent sought an order permitting cross-examination of the witnesses on their will-says, or alternatively, requiring the statements to be translated and signed by the witnesses, or permitting cross-examination of the applicant on the preparation of the statements.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the will-say statements were provided in compliance with the undertakings given, were sufficiently detailed and meaningful, and that the respondent was not prejudiced by their late service.

The court clarified the proper use of will-say statements as disclosure tools rather than evidence, and protected communications between the applicant and her counsel regarding the preparation of the statements under solicitor-client privilege.

A motion brought by Hamilton Child and Family Supports seeking an extension of time under section 122 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 for a Métis child to remain in society care beyond the statutory 12-month limit.

The child's mother, who was incarcerated for manslaughter, has been released and is making substantial progress toward reunification.

The court granted a six-month extension, interpreting section 122 in light of the remedial nature of the federal legislation governing Indigenous child welfare and the principles of cultural continuity and substantive equality.

This decision addresses a motion by the paternal grandmother, M.P., to be added as a party to child protection proceedings concerning K.F.-W. The court reviews the statutory and discretionary bases for party status under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 and the Family Law Rules.

The court finds that M.P. does not meet the definition of "parent" under the Act and that adding her as a party is not in the best interests of the child, would unduly complicate and delay the proceedings, and would increase conflict.

The motion is dismissed.

This decision concerns a motion to change child support and section 7 expenses brought by the paternal grandparents of J.G. against his mother, Kristy Ferreira.

The court found that the grandparents, having demonstrated a settled intention to treat J.G. as their child, are "parents" under the Family Law Act and thus subject to the Child Support Guidelines.

The court determined the appropriate sharing of retroactive and ongoing section 7 expenses, the child’s contribution to post-secondary costs, and the repayment schedule for retroactive support, emphasizing proportionality to household incomes and the best interests of the child.

This decision resolves a family law trial between Louris Korie and Henri Korie, addressing property division, support, unjust enrichment, a restraining order, and costs.

The court orders the equalization payment to be made by pension rollover, dismisses the unjust enrichment and restraining order claims, and sets the commencement of support to the month after the sale of the matrimonial home.

Costs are divided, with the applicant ordered to pay $4,000 to the respondent.

This decision addresses urgent motions regarding the residential schedule of four children, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and a proposed nesting arrangement following the separation of Laura Anne Fennema and Trevor William Harry Fennema.

The court found the parenting time issues urgent due to the children’s removal from their home and school, but dismissed other requests for lack of urgency.

The court declined to order exclusive possession or nesting, primarily because of the Applicant’s criminal release conditions and the practicalities of the family farm.

The court ordered the children’s immediate return to their home with the Respondent and set a detailed interim parenting schedule, emphasizing the children’s best interests and stability.