Does in loco parentis have to continue to pay in support of a child?

In Chartier v. Chartier Bastarache J. referred to Laraque v. Allooloo (1992), 1992 CanLII 2812 (NWT SC), 44 R.F.L. (3d) 10 (N.W.T.S.C.) for the following proposition: At the risk of being repetitious, it is well settled law that it takes a properly informed and deliberate intention to assume parental obligations for support of a child, on an ongoing basis, to bring the in loco parentis status in law into being. Given that premise, it is difficult to conclude that this status is meaningless or can be negated at whim whenever the person in loco parentis is visited by second thoughts on the matter or decides to abandon the project altogether. Justice Bastarache went on at paragraph 39 to hold that, The relevant factors in defining the parental relationship include, but are not limited to, whether the child participates in the extended family in the same way as would a biological child; whether the person provides financially for the child (depending on ability to pay); whether the person disciplines the child as a parent; whether the person represents to the child, the family, the world, either explicitly or implicitly, that he or she is responsible as a parent to the child; the nature or existence of the child’s relationship with the absent biological parent.