An Ontario Superior Court judge has ruled that the parents of a teenager’s girlfriend did not have the legal right to sue his adoptive parents for child support, clarifying the high bar required for a third party to be considered a “parent” under provincial family law1. The decision, released on October 7, 2025, overturned a lower court’s attempt to keep the child support claim alive by appointing the girlfriend’s parents as the teen’s litigation guardians, a move the appeal court found was made without legal authority. The ruling effectively dismisses the original application brought by the girlfriend’s parents and leaves the now 18 year old youth to start his own claim for retroactive support if he chooses.
The complex family dispute began when the relationship between a teenager named Alex Bowlby and his adoptive parents, Paul and Laura Bowlby, broke down. Alex, who had been adopted by the Bowlbys at age six, left their home on May 9, 2022, when he was approximately 15 and a half years old. He moved in with Craig and Julie Oliver, the parents of his girlfriend. The reasons for the breakdown in the relationship were contested, but the events that followed set the stage for a prolonged legal battle over fundamental questions of parental status and the right to seek child support.
Less than two months after Alex moved in, on July 5, 2022, the Olivers commenced a formal court application against the Bowlbys. They sought not only child support for Alex but also legal decision-making authority over him. In August 2022, the Olivers were granted a temporary order for decision-making authority on an urgent basis, with the stated purpose being to register Alex in a competitive baseball program. For the next two years, Alex remained in the exclusive care of the Olivers, who provided him with a home and the necessities of life. They assisted with his education, driver’s licensing, and various appointments, and stated in court documents that he was treated as a member of their family.
The core of the legal conflict, however, centered on the Olivers’ standing to bring the claim for child support. The Bowlbys challenged their right to sue, and the preliminary issue was scheduled for a special hearing. That hearing did not take place until June 7, 2024, before Justice G.B. Edward of the Ontario Court of Justice, just a few months before Alex’s 18th birthday. At this hearing, the Olivers argued they had the right to sue for support as “parents” under section 33(2) of Ontario’s Family Law Act. The Act allows a child support application to be made by a dependant child or the dependant’s parent. The Olivers asserted that they met the Act’s definition of “parent,” which includes a person who has demonstrated a “settled intention to treat a child as a child of his or her family.”
Justice Edward disagreed with the Olivers. In his decision, he found that they had failed to demonstrate the kind of “settled intention” required by law, distinguishing their situation from precedent-setting cases involving stepparents who had clearly assumed a parental role. He noted that the initial court order was for the specific purpose of baseball and that the Olivers’ laudable actions in caring for Alex did not automatically elevate their status to that of legal parents with the right to claim support from his adoptive parents.
Having concluded that the Olivers lacked standing to bring the claim, Justice Edward was faced with a procedural dilemma. He believed Alex was entitled to support from the Bowlbys and did not want to dismiss the case entirely. To move the matter forward, he made a second, crucial decision. Despite the Olivers never formally applying for the role and in fact arguing against it, Justice Edward amended the court application on his own initiative, appointing the Olivers as Alex’s litigation guardians. This would have allowed the claim for child support to continue, but with Alex as the formal applicant, represented by the Olivers. He also denied the Bowlbys their legal costs for successfully arguing the standing issue.
This outcome satisfied neither side, prompting an appeal to the Superior Court of Justice. The Bowlbys appealed the decision to appoint the Olivers as litigation guardians, arguing that Justice Edward had no jurisdiction to do so. Their position was that once the judge found the Olivers had no standing, the entire application should have been dismissed. Alex, who had since turned 18 and was now represented by the same lawyer who had previously acted for the Olivers, filed a cross-appeal. He argued that Justice Edward was wrong on the first point and that the Olivers should have been recognized as parents with a settled intention. Concurrently, Alex brought a motion to have the entire appeal declared moot, or legally irrelevant, on the basis that as an adult, he could now pursue his claim for retroactive support directly.
In his comprehensive endorsement, Superior Court Justice A. Spurgeon sided with the lower court on the question of parental status but agreed with the Bowlbys that a critical jurisdictional error had been made. Justice Spurgeon affirmed Justice Edward’s finding that the Olivers had not demonstrated a “settled intention” to treat Alex as their child. He stressed that this legal test requires a profound commitment that cannot be “transactional, transitory, nor conditional.” He posed a hypothetical question raised during the appeal hearing: what would happen to the Olivers’ professed settled intention if Alex and their daughter were to break up? The court found that the love and charity extended by the Olivers, while commendable, did not meet the high threshold required to legally assume the mantle of parenthood under the Family Law Act. Consequently, Alex’s cross-appeal was dismissed.
On the Bowlbys’ appeal, Justice Spurgeon found that the lower court judge had indeed erred in law by appointing the Olivers as litigation guardians. He explained that the Rules of Civil Procedure set out a specific, mandatory process for a person to become a litigation guardian for a minor. That process requires the proposed guardian to file an affidavit in which they formally consent to the role and, critically, acknowledge their personal liability for any costs awarded against them or the minor. The Olivers had not done this. Justice Spurgeon ruled that a judge does not have the authority to impose this role and its accompanying financial risks on an unwilling private individual. He stated that once Justice Edward determined there was no proper person willing and able to act, his only available option under the rules was to appoint the Children’s Lawyer to represent Alex. The failure to do so was a jurisdictional error, rendering the appointment of the Olivers void.
Finally, Justice Spurgeon dismissed Alex’s motion to declare the appeal moot. He reasoned that even with Alex now being an adult, there remained a live issue between the original parties: the matter of legal costs. Because the Olivers’ application was improperly brought and should have been dismissed from the outset, the Bowlbys retained an interest in seeking to recover their legal costs from the Olivers.
The appeal court’s final order dismissed the Olivers’ original application for lack of standing and set aside the order that had made them litigation guardians. The decision does not prevent Alex from commencing a new, separate claim for retroactive child support against the Bowlbys. The issue of costs from both the original hearing and the appeal was left for the parties to attempt to resolve, failing which it could be brought back before the court. In a concluding note, Justice Spurgeon offered a piece of advice to all involved, suggesting they “take a step back and carefully consider the path forward,” adding that a long-term perspective with a view to reconciliation would be advisable.
Read more about family law cases here.
