Alexander Hodder

The applicant, Cindy Lee Ann Cayen, sought a stay of certain provisions of a May 15, 2025 order pending her appeal.

The court reviewed the applicable legal test for a stay pending appeal, focusing on whether the appeal raised a serious issue, whether the children would suffer irreparable harm if a stay was not granted, and the balance of convenience.

The court found that while the appeal was not frivolous or vexatious, the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm to the children.

The motion for a stay was dismissed without costs.

This decision concerns the sale of a jointly owned residential property following the breakdown of a common law relationship.

The applicant, Cindy Lee Ann Cayen, sought urgent terms for the sale of the home, including an order requiring the respondent, Chad Parish, to vacate the property due to his ongoing non-compliance with previous court orders for sale.

The court found that the respondent had not appealed the orders, had obstructed the sale, and had not provided evidence of a viable plan to purchase the applicant’s interest.

The court ordered the respondent to vacate the property within 21 days and granted the applicant leave to obtain a writ of possession if necessary.

The distribution of sale proceeds was reserved.

The applicants, the child's paternal grandmother and father, and the respondent mother brought a consent motion for a final parenting order.

The court declined to grant the order on the current record, noting deficiencies in the evidence, including the grandmother's failure to provide a proper police records check under the Children's Law Reform Act, missing affidavits, and conflicting evidence regarding Children's Aid Society involvement.

The court issued a temporary order requiring the parties to file additional materials before the consent order could be considered.

In a child protection application, the father (A.A.) moved for a Section 98 assessment concerning allegations of sexual abuse against him and potential coaching of the children.

The court found the assessment necessary to determine the issues, particularly regarding coaching, as police opinions were deemed insufficient.

The motion was granted, and the court ordered the Children's Aid Society to pay 75% of the assessment costs, with the father responsible for the remaining 25%, including a repayment plan if he could not pay his share upfront.

The applicants (paternal grandmother and father) brought an urgent motion for an interim parenting order for their two-year-old child.

The urgency arose because the mother had unilaterally taken the child to Prince Edward Island, which the court previously ordered her to return from.

The court considered the father's extensive criminal record, including assault convictions, and the mother's wrongful self-help actions, as well as questions regarding the mother's parenting abilities.

The court made an interim parenting order granting the paternal grandmother care and control for part of the week and the mother for the remainder, with the father having supervised daytime access.

The motions were adjourned to a case conference to address the mother's future housing arrangements.

The paternal grandmother and father brought an urgent motion for the return of a two-year-old child after the mother unilaterally relocated with the child from London, Ontario to Prince Edward Island.

The mother brought a cross-motion for interim custody and permission to reside in PEI.

The court applied the Plumley test for interim mobility and found no compelling circumstances to justify the move, noting the child's habitual residence was London and the move would undermine the child's relationship with the applicants.

The mother was ordered to return the child to London pending further interim orders.

The respondent mother, having been the successful party in previous motions concerning parenting time, sought costs.

The applicant father opposed the costs request and sought his own costs.

The court found no evidence of unreasonable behavior by either party that would displace the presumption that the successful party is entitled to costs.

The respondent mother's offers to settle did not meet the formal requirements for enhanced cost consequences under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The court rejected the applicant father's argument that the respondent mother's legal aid funding should limit the recoverable costs to Legal Aid rates, reaffirming that legally aided clients are entitled to recover costs at private retainer rates.

The court fixed the respondent mother's costs for the original motions at $2,500 and awarded an additional $500 for the preparation of costs submissions, totaling $3,000.

The applicant father sought to restore a previous parenting schedule (Friday after-school to Monday morning) for the two children (aged 9 and 6).

The respondent mother brought cross-motions to restrict the father's parenting time, initially seeking no overnight access, but later proposing a compromise of Saturday 10:00 a.m. to Sunday 8:00 p.m.

The court found that the children were exhibiting troubling behaviours, including self-harm by the younger child, which constituted a compelling reason to disturb the status quo.

The court also found that the father had exposed the children to adult conflict, including manipulative behaviour during a phone call.

The court dismissed the father's motion to restore the prior schedule and granted the mother's compromise proposal for an interim parenting schedule, along with mutual orders prohibiting disparagement and discussion of litigation in the children's presence.

E.N.H., the sister of the mother (T.R.), brought a motion to be added as a party respondent in a child protection status review application.

E.N.H. sought to claim placement of the two children with her or a custody order, intending to involve the mother in their lives.

The Children's Aid Society, the father (G.R.), and counsel for the children opposed the motion, arguing that E.N.H. was a "stalking horse" for the mother and had adopted the mother's unsubstantiated delusions about the father.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that E.N.H.'s plan did not merit consideration and that adding her as a party was not in the children's best interests, as her beliefs and minimization of past misconduct were problematic.