A. Crossley

Following the vacating of the parties' motions for violating page limitations, the applicant requested an urgent teleconference regarding his spousal support motion.

The court expressed frustration with the parties' litigious conduct and the broader culture of unreasonableness and incivility in family court.

The court scheduled the applicant's spousal support motion and directed the respondent to file a 14B motion for leave to proceed with her motion.

The applicant moved to remove the respondent's lawyer and his firm as counsel of record, arguing she intended to call the lawyer as a witness at trial regarding the negotiation of a separation agreement she sought to set aside for duress.

The court applied the nine-factor test from Essa (Township) v. Guergis and found that the lawyer's evidence would largely be protected by solicitor-client privilege, other sources of evidence were available, and removing counsel would severely prejudice the respondent.

The motion to remove counsel was dismissed.

The applicant father brought a motion for sole custody of the parties' two children, relying on a section 30 assessment that found the respondent mother was severely alienating the children.

The assessor testified that the mother's influence caused parentification, insecure attachment, and a shared delusion, including false allegations of abuse against the father.

Finding this to be an exceptional case where the assessor's recommendations must be acted upon immediately to prevent grave psychological harm, the court granted the father temporary sole custody, ordered no contact between the mother and children, and terminated the father's child support obligations.