Cases tagged as Child Custody and Parenting
Brothers v Kirwan, 2025 ABCA 372025
Counsel of Record: Yasemin Shihab Ahmed
Case Summary: Yasemin Shihab Ahmed successfully represented the appellant mother in a significant Alberta Court of Appeal case that reinforced the principle of finality in family law decisions.
The case involved a relocation application by the mother, who sought to move with her young son to Nova Scotia to be closer to her family and pursue post-secondary education. Her application was initially denied in 2023 and the hearing judge requested that the mother provide further financial and childcare information. This led to a second hearing in 2024 where the decision largely reaffirmed the original ruling.
Yasemin argued on appeal that the judge had exceeded her jurisdiction by reviewing a final decision and was functus officio. The Court of Appeal agreed that the process was improper and there was no justification for a review, especially of a final decision. The court set aside the 2024 decision; however, they declined to order a de novo hearing, affirming the 2023 decision, and denying the application.
B.D.K. v D.M.W., 2024 BCSC 23852024
Counsel of Record: Cori Molloy
Case Summary: Cori Molloy successfully represented the claimant father in this groundbreaking family law case, securing an increase in parenting time. This landmark decision—the first in BC to consider a multi-parent agreement—reflects the evolving dynamics of Canadian families and reinforces that a child’s best interests are served by fostering relationships with all of their parents.
The case presented unique challenges, with the claimant facing opposition from two aligned parents. Despite the complexities, Cori effectively advocated for the claimant’s role in the child’s life. A key aspect of the case was the court’s decision to deny the respondent’s request for a section 211 report, often considered the “eyes and ears” of the court in parenting matters. The judge ruled that the request was an “attempt to create parenting controversies where none exist,” setting a significant precedent that may deter the misuse of such reports as litigation tactics in future cases.
Nalinakshan v Dileep, 2021 BCSC 2565 2021
Counsel of Record: Millad Ossudallah
Case Summary: Millad Ossudallah successfully represented the respondent father in securing the return of his child from India to Smithers, BC within 21 days. This outcome was reached after the claimant mother had relocated without the father's consent, as provided in the BC Family Law Act. Additionally, the court ruled that the mother is prohibited from removing the child from Smithers without either the father's consent or a subsequent court order.
S.R.B. v. N.J.D.B., 2021 BCPC 2182021
Counsel of Record: Tanya Thakur
Case Summary: Tanya Thakur successfully represented the mother in this complex child custody and support case. The court upheld the existing parenting schedule, where the children primarily reside with the mother. The court also ruled in favour of the mother for child support and a proportionate share of the children's daycare costs, ensuring her financial stability and the well-being of the children.
Allan v Fagerholm, 2021 ABPC 332021
Counsel of Record: Camille Boyer
Case Summary: In this complex case involving substance abuse and child custody, the applicant father, represented by Camille Boyer was successful in petitioning the court to update the existing parenting order. Despite ongoing struggles with sobriety, the father had consistently tested negative for substance use and sought to improve his situation. Ultimately, the court granted the father unsupervised visits with his child every Saturday. The decision marked a positive step for the father in being more involved in his child's life.
MLJ v SFJL, 2017 ABQB 1942017
Counsel of Record: Amanda Marsden
Case Summary: Amanda Marsden successfully represented the mother in this case involving international child custody. The court ruled that the child, who was taken to Canada by the father, was wrongfully retained and should be immediately returned to France. The father failed to prove that the mother had deceived him into moving to France with the intent of ending their relationship. The decision reinforced that both parents had originally mutually agreed to make France their habitual residence, affirming the mother's rightful custody.