Wendy Jane Elliott

A motion to vary a temporary care and custody order under the Child and Family Services Act.

The applicant Children's Aid Society sought to change the joint week-about custody arrangement to place the child in the sole care of the father and step-mother, with alternate weekend access to the mother, subject to society supervision.

The respondent mother opposed the variation, arguing there had been no material change in circumstances.

The court found that the mother's unilateral change to the child's medication without consulting the father or society, combined with her unilateral decisions regarding the child's services, constituted a material change in circumstances that affected the risk of harm to the child.

The court granted the variation, finding that the child required a stable, consistent environment with one decision-maker for medical, educational, and behavioural matters.

A parent with primary custody brought a motion seeking retroactive and ongoing child support, contribution to special or extraordinary expenses, and life insurance security for support obligations.

The court considered the principles governing retroactive support articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada and examined the payor parent’s failure to disclose income despite an earlier court order requiring disclosure.

The court determined that child support should have commenced once the payor parent became drug‑free and obtained stable employment, and ordered retroactive support accordingly.

Arrears were calculated based on historical income under the Child Support Guidelines and ongoing monthly support was ordered.

The payor parent was also ordered to contribute proportionately to section 7 expenses and maintain life insurance to secure the support obligation.

The appellant appealed an order made in a divorce proceeding that set aside property agreements and divided property on an asset-by-asset basis.

At trial, the respondent, who had just retained counsel, sought an equalization of net family properties and to set aside the agreements without amending the pleadings.

The trial judge discouraged the unrepresented appellant from seeking time to prepare financial statements.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that proceeding without proper notice and explicit statements of claims amounted to a denial of natural justice.