Roskam and Roskam

This matter came before Bennett J concerning proceedings between the father and the mother, with an Independent Children's Lawyer appointed. The dispute involved allegations of the father's non-compliance with court orders regarding supervised drug screens, and the father sought an adjournment of the final hearing.

The court was required to determine several issues, including whether to grant the father leave to file a Notice of Address for Service, the admissibility and authentication of an observational report from the I Centre, and whether to grant the father leave to make an oral application for an adjournment. The court also considered variations to existing orders concerning the Independent Children's Lawyer's responsibilities for obtaining a report and the father's compliance with drug screening orders. Furthermore, the court addressed an injunction sought to restrain complaints to professional bodies regarding the Single Expert and the Independent Children's Lawyer's liberty to meet with the children.

Bennett J made several orders, including granting the father leave to file a Notice of Address for Service, marking the I Centre report as an exhibit without requiring further affidavit authentication provided a competent witness was available, and granting the Independent Children's Lawyer liberty to file a Notice to Admit Facts regarding the father's alleged non-compliance with drug screen orders. The court refused the father's oral application for an adjournment, with reasons to be transcribed and placed on the court file. The matter was listed for final hearing on specified dates, with provision for continuation in February 2017. The court varied an order to make the Independent Children's Lawyer responsible for obtaining a report from Ms B, noting a request for an extension of assistance for this report. An injunction was granted restraining parties from making complaints to professional bodies concerning the Single Expert without leave of the court. The Independent Children's Lawyer was permitted to meet with the children, notwithstanding the father's opposition, and to make submissions regarding their views. The court noted the Independent Children's Lawyer's request for a supervised urine screen from the father, deeming it a request pursuant to a prior order, and further noted that the court may proceed to determine the matter in the event of a party's failure to attend or default.