Annette Nyland

The father brought an interim parenting motion seeking sole decision-making responsibility and primary residency of the parties' six-year-old child, with a specific concern that the mother had not enrolled the child in school.

The mother sought an adjournment to retain new counsel.

The court granted the adjournment for the broader parenting issues but decided the urgent issue of school attendance.

Finding that in-person schooling is presumed to be in a child's best interests and noting the child's need for socialization and speech therapy, the court granted the father temporary decision-making authority over education and ordered the child to be immediately enrolled in in-person learning.

Following a motion regarding financial disclosure where success was divided, both parties sought costs.

The applicant mother sought full indemnity costs of approximately $26,000, while the respondent father sought substantial indemnity costs of about $11,500.

The court found no bad faith by the father and determined that success on the motion was fairly evenly divided.

Consequently, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The applicant mother brought a motion for an interim order granting her sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of the parties' four-year-old child, along with a modified parenting schedule for the respondent father.

The mother argued the current schedule caused the child anxiety, while the father sought a 2-2-3 shared parenting schedule.

The court granted the mother interim sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, finding it in the child's best interests.

The court rejected the father's 2-2-3 proposal due to uncertainty but modified his parenting time to shorter, more frequent visits to reduce the child's anxiety while maintaining regular contact.

The applicant mother brought a motion to enforce a consent disclosure order against the respondent father.

The court found that while the respondent had produced voluminous records, he failed to comply with five specific items, including his complete 2019 personal tax return and a detailed summary of gross commissions.

The motion was allowed in part, and the respondent was ordered to produce the outstanding items within 30 days.

The proposed applicant, Mr. Malinowski, sought an urgent motion regarding the necessity of self-isolation before resuming scheduled in-person parenting time, without having formally commenced an application.

The court denied the request for an urgent hearing, noting that the practical urgency had dissipated as the proposed respondent, Ms. Malinowska, was prepared to resume the access schedule on the day of the decision.

The court also highlighted the lack of formal pleadings, which prevented a full understanding of the legal positions and potential urgency of the broader issues, including unresolved property matters.

The parties were encouraged to continue efforts to resolve their differences with the assistance of counsel, referencing the evolving jurisprudence on parenting during the COVID-19 pandemic.