W. Malcolm

The applicant sought full indemnity costs following an uncontested trial for child support where the respondent was noted in default.

The court found the respondent acted in bad faith by intentionally delaying proceedings, refusing DNA testing, and failing to provide financial disclosure.

The court awarded full recovery costs, including reduced hours for student caseworkers from a university legal clinic and disbursements for a pro bono forensic accountant, emphasizing that pro bono representation does not shield an opposing party from costs consequences.

The applicant mother sought a declaration of parentage and retroactive child support from the respondent, an Australian orthopedic surgeon.

The respondent repeatedly evaded the proceedings, refused court-ordered DNA testing, and failed to provide financial disclosure, resulting in his pleadings being struck.

The court drew adverse inferences, declared the respondent the child's parent, and imputed his income at $563,738 CDN.

Finding blameworthy conduct and significant deprivation to the child, the court awarded retroactive child support back to 2009, totaling $564,684.12, and ordered ongoing support at the Table amount.

The applicant society brought a motion for temporary care and custody of a newborn child with high medical needs.

The parents opposed the motion, seeking the child's return to their care.

The court found substantial risk of harm to the child due to the parents' history of domestic violence, extreme neglect of their four older children, and inability to follow society directions.

The court concluded that no terms of supervision could adequately protect the child and ordered that the child remain in the temporary care of the society.

The applicant grandmother brought an application for specified access to her 12-year-old granddaughter.

The respondent mother opposed specified access, requesting that any access be at her sole discretion.

The matter proceeded as a focused hearing treated as a summary judgment motion.

The court found a history of significant conflict and dysfunction between the grandmother and the mother, including unfounded reports made by the grandmother to the Children's Aid Society.

Applying the test for grandparent access, the court held that the mother was not acting arbitrarily in limiting access and that court-ordered specified access would place the child in the middle of the conflict, contrary to her best interests.

The court ordered that the grandmother have access solely at the discretion of the mother, consistent with the child's wishes.

The applicant children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection.

The mother had fled with the child to the United States, living in her car and shelters, and exhibiting erratic behaviour and suspected paranoia.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding that the mother's actions put the child at risk of physical and emotional harm.

The motion was granted, and the child was found in need of protection.