Anushika Upamali Anthony

The respondent mother brought a motion to vary an interim parenting time order for her two-year-old child, Isabelle, who resides with the applicant father.

The mother, now residing four hours away, sought unsupervised weekly parenting time in Sudbury or supervised by her mother/adult daughter.

The father proposed limited supervised access in Milton at a family visiting centre.

The court found material changes in circumstances, including the mother's relocation, resolution of criminal charges, and the cessation of previous supervision arrangements.

Emphasizing the child's best interests, particularly physical, emotional, and psychological safety, security, and well-being, the court deemed the father's proposal ungenerous and impractical, while the mother's request for weekly travel was excessive for a young child.

The court ordered a hybrid approach: supervised parenting time at the maternal grandmother's alcohol-free home in Sudbury once a month for a weekend, and also supervised access at the Thrive Family Visiting Centre in Milton.

Remote parenting time provisions were also established.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion seeking a specified schedule of regular parenting time with the older child (I.A., age 11) following a criminal charge laid against the applicant mother.

The mother opposed the motion and sought to suspend access due to COVID-19 concerns and the child's alleged reluctance.

The court found that while the child's views must be considered, they cannot be determinative when a parent seeks to restrict access without compelling justification.

The court rejected both the mother's proposal for suspension and the father's proposal for the detailed OCL-recommended schedule, instead crafting a modified temporary order reflecting the unique circumstances of the pandemic while maintaining meaningful parent-child contact.