Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The applicant failed to meet the high onus to show actual or reasonably apprehended bias; criticisms of prior decisions and perceived procedural unfairness are matters for appeal, not recusal; the s.211 report had been ordered and the court's scheduling directions do not demonstrate a predetermined outcome, therefore recusal was not justified and the application is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The court ordered court-directed re-integrative family counselling because it was necessary for the children's best interests and more likely to succeed with the respondent's proposed provider given his greater relevant experience and training; the court may require counselling despite the children's opposition where their views are not determinative of long-term best interests; parties must share counselling fees equally and each party bears their own legal costs of the counselling application while the respondent is awarded costs for the enforcement/variation application on the ordinary sca…
Source excerpt
Interim parenting orders were made recognizing P. as primarily resident with the claimant but awarding the respondent regular parenting time (Mondays after school to 8:00 p.m. and additional time as P. requests), with the parenting schedule reviewable after family counselling; no declaration of wrongful denial of parenting time was granted; the claimant ordered to attend an intake with Crossroads and the parties ordered to jointly obtain a written counselling plan and share preparatory costs equally with each bearing their own counselling session costs as directed; respondent's income was imp…
Source excerpt
The Federal Court granted judicial review of an H&C refusal, finding the officer’s reasons were not transparent or justified on the best interests of the child and ADR hardship.
Balancing the s.37 FLA factors and the need to preserve aspects of the status quo, the court ordered a graduated interim parenting plan to introduce overnight parenting at the father's residence in phases, ordered counselling under s.224 with a defined selection protocol and interim cost allocation (father 80%/mother 20% of joint sessions), granted mutual conduct orders to minimize children's exposure to conflict, declined to appoint a parenting coordinator as premature and adjourned that application for reassessment after July 1, 2026, and reserved costs with a timetable for written submissi…
Source excerpt
The Federal Court granted judicial review of an H&C refusal, finding the officer’s best interests of the child analysis unreasonable and remitting the matter.
The application for appointment of a child advocate was refused because the limited materials before the court (primarily Dr. Adams' consult notes and the prior decision of Weatherill J.) did not demonstrate sufficient urgency or a material change in circumstances to justify overriding the case-managing judge's prior decision; the proper course is to allow Weatherill J. to consider any additional material or, if impractical within two weeks, to return with a fuller hearing before Jones J.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court dismissed as moot an application challenging a CBSA refusal to defer removal, finding no practical purpose in deciding an expired request.
Applying the best interests of the child, the court increased the claimant's parenting time to a 3‑2‑2 rotation and transferred final decision‑making authority to the claimant (subject to required consultation) because the claimant demonstrated capacity and commitment, the respondent repeatedly breached orders and weaponized parenting, and there was insufficient evidence of risk from the claimant's lifestyle to justify restricting parenting; breaches justified cumulative $1,000 fines per contravention under s.230(2) and a mandatory six‑month unknown hair follicle drug test under s.222; intrus…
Source excerpt
Termination of O's parenting was not warranted; unsupervised parenting time in PEI was denied as not in the child's best interests given O's mental health history, limited demonstrated parental skills, minimal attachment, and the antagonistic relationship with O's parents. The appropriate disposition was to order supervised visits through Veith House with a short judicial review in or around June 2026 to reassess parenting arrangements.
Source excerpt
Explore more
