Ursula Miletic

The applicant brought a motion seeking a final order for child support and contributions to special and extraordinary expenses.

The parties had consented to a child support amount lower than the Child Support Guidelines table amount, citing the respondent's obligation to a new family as a reason for undue hardship.

The court rejected the proposed consent order due to insufficient financial disclosure from the respondent and the principle that child support is a right of the child that cannot be contracted out of without proper justification.

The court issued an interim interim child support order and compelled the respondent to provide full financial disclosure.

This decision addresses an urgent motion brought by the applicant mother, Joann Peters, seeking the return of her children, Preston and William, from the respondent father, George Peters, who had retained them after a March Break access period.

The motion also sought a transfer of the matter to Kingston.

The court, operating under COVID-19 emergency protocols, determined whether the motion met the criteria for urgency, specifically regarding the wrongful retention of a child.

The court found the matter urgent and allowed the motion to proceed, limited to the issue of wrongful retention, while making several procedural orders for the exchange of affidavits and scheduling.

The defendants, a treating psychologist and a children's aid society, brought motions under Rule 21 to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim.

The plaintiffs' action arose from a child protection investigation and criminal charges based on allegations of abuse made by a child previously adopted by the plaintiffs.

The court struck the claim against the psychologist without leave to amend, finding she owed no duty of care to the parents of her patient and was statutorily obligated to report suspected abuse.

The court also struck the adult plaintiffs' claims in negligence and various intentional torts against the children's aid society defendants, finding no duty of care was owed to the parents during a child protection investigation.

Leave to amend was granted for claims of misfeasance in public office and Charter damages.

A children's aid society brought a motion under subsection 64(8) of the Child and Family Services Act to vary a prior order placing four children in the care of their mother.

The society sought to place the two older children with their father and the two younger children in society care, based primarily on positive hair follicle test results indicating cocaine and cannabis use by the mother.

The mother opposed the motion, supported by counsel for the Children's Lawyer.

The court found a material change in circumstances but determined that removal from the mother's care was not necessary to protect the children's best interests.

Instead, the court imposed additional supervision terms including random drug testing, increased home visits, completion of parenting assessments, and prohibition of contact with an incarcerated father.