Canada Case Law

Nova Scotia (Opportunities and Social Development) v. RE

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

On the balance of probabilities the Agency proved N remains a child in need of protective services (s.22(2)) due to ongoing parental substance abuse, instability and inadequate parenting; the statutory maximum timeline for disposition had been exceeded and the maternal grandmother’s late, unassessed, temporary and unsupported plan was not a reasonable family alternative; accordingly an order for permanent care and custody to the Agency is in the child's best interests.

Source excerpt

• Permanent care and custody
• Child in need of protective services
• Parenting plan
• Substance abuse
• Best interests of the child
• Statutory timelines

Read case analysis

Westlake v. Morton

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Successful party (applicant) is ordinarily entitled to costs; because counsel did not particularize fees the court could not assess a reasonable percentage or lump sum based on actual account, so the court reverted to the tariffs, determined the amount involved was under $25,000 and adopted tariff scale 2 with $4,000 plus $2,000 per day; reduced the tariff award by $1,500 for partial success on the parenting plan; declined conduct-based adjustment because both parties contributed to unnecessary costs; rejected rule of thumb and percentage methods; ordered respondent to pay costs of $6,500 plu…

Source excerpt

• Relocation application
• Costs award
• Tariff application
• Voice of the child report
• Parenting plan
• Rule of court adjustments

Read case analysis

Community Services (Nova Scotia) v. SO, NB

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Consolidation was declined because it would extend the CFSA timeline and the core dispute concerns private parenting issues appropriately decided under the Divorce Act/PSA; bridging orders that materially change the interim parenting arrangements were denied because such changes require evidence and a best-interests determination in the private forum; a limited bridging order concerning agreed arrangements for parenting exchanges may be granted if the parties agree.

Source excerpt

• Bridging order
• Consolidation
• Parenting plan
• Best interests of the child
• Cfsa timeline
• Parenting exchanges

Read case analysis

A.M. v. K.W.

Court

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

The Court dismissed the appeal because the trial judge applied correct legal principles, made factual findings on credibility, communication and cooperation that were supported by the record and not palpably and overridingly erroneous; shared parenting was not in the children's best interests on the evidence; the unjust enrichment remedy properly considered mutual benefits and did not require division of the respondent's pension/RRSP/TFSA; and the costs award was a lawful exercise of discretion given the parties' relative success and settlement history.

Source excerpt

• Best interests of the child
• Parenting plan
• Joint custody
• Shared parenting
• Maximum contact principle
• Unjust enrichment remedy

Read case analysis

Belisle v. Henneberry

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The interim variation was refused because interim relief must be the least disruptive and preserve the status quo unless contrary to the child’s best interests; here the status quo (child residing primarily with father since December 2017, attending the local school, supported by extended family) provides the greatest stability pending the final hearing and a two-hour interim hearing is insufficient to displace it.

Source excerpt

• Best interests of the child
• Status quo
• Interim variation
• Parenting plan
• Primary residence
• Schooling

Read case analysis

J.E.W. v. W.E.D.

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The court ordered joint custody with shared decision-making and a specific two-week rotation parenting schedule (including detailed holiday and special event allocation) because, on the facts (parents’ employment stability and residence), that arrangement best serves the children’s best interests and promotes cooperation and stability.

Source excerpt

• Parenting plan
• Joint custody
• Decision-making responsibility
• Parenting schedule
• Best interests of the child

Read case analysis

A.C. v. G.B.

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Applying Gordon v. Goertz and the PSA mobility factors, the court found the mother's relocation proposal met the material change threshold and that, on balance, relocation to Ontario with the primary caregiver was in the child's best interests because the child had lived primarily with the mother since birth, had strong attachments to the mother's household including a stepfather and sibling, the assessor's observations of the mother's household were limited, the parents demonstrated poor communication and cooperation, and the disruption of relocation was outweighed by continuity of the child…

Source excerpt

• Relocation/mobility
• Best interests of the child
• Parenting plan
• Joint custody
• Access/contact
• Assessor report weight

Read case analysis

B.A.C. v. K.C.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court upheld the separation agreement, modified the parenting plan to better support the children’s best interests, set aside a protection order, and adjusted child support retroactively.

• Separation agreement
• Parenting plan
• Best interests of the child
• Family violence
• Financial disclosure
• Protection order

Read case analysis

Wright v. Hudson

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court ordered an interim parenting schedule after the child’s relocation to Nova Scotia, denied child support relief for travel costs, and made no order on ski equipment.

• Relocation of child
• Parenting plan
• Interim orders
• Child support undue hardship
• Virtual contact and exchanges
• Parenting-plan

Read case analysis

A.N. v. J.Z.

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Shared parenting was refused because the parties lack the necessary communication, cooperation and integration of parenting styles, particularly given the child's medical needs; joint custody was ordered with the child’s primary residence with the petitioner and a detailed parenting schedule set; child support fixed at the table amount of $656/month based on respondent income and s.7 expenses to be shared proportionately; the prenuptial agreement was set aside due to the petitioner’s vulnerability, lack of disclosure and absence of independent legal advice at execution, triggering statutory e…

Source excerpt

• Parenting plan
• Shared parenting
• Child support (federal child support guidelines)
• Section 7 expenses
• Prenuptial agreement
• Property equalization

Read case analysis