A. Williams

The parties brought cross-motions to change a final consent parenting order.

The mother sought to reduce the father's parenting time to alternate weekends and retain sole decision-making, citing escalating conflict, family violence, and the father's aggressive behaviour during police station exchanges.

The father sought equal parenting time and sole decision-making, alleging the mother and her new partner were maliciously trying to ruin his life and alienate the child.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the escalating conflict and the failure of the existing exchange mechanisms.

The court ordered a strict weekabout equal-time schedule to reduce transitions, maintained the mother's sole decision-making authority, and strictly prohibited any face-to-face contact between the parents during exchanges or otherwise.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel the defendants, the City of Hamilton and the Hamilton Region Conservation Authority, to answer questions refused during examinations for discovery.

The underlying action involves a minor plaintiff who sustained catastrophic injuries after falling from a trail at Albion Falls Park.

The court reviewed the refused questions, applying the test for relevance under Rule 31.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court ordered the defendants to answer several questions related to prior safety concerns, incident reports, and the identities of individuals with knowledge, while upholding refusals for irrelevant questions.

Success was divided, and costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order to place three children in extended society care with no access to the respondent parents.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding the need for protection, citing chronic exposure to domestic violence and conflict in the home.

The children were ordered into extended society care.

The court granted summary judgment denying access to one father who had no relationship with his child.

However, the court found a genuine issue for trial regarding access for the mother and the other father, directing that issue to a focused hearing.

The Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton brought a motion seeking permission to proceed with a summary judgment motion in a complex child protection file involving three children.

The motion was heard via Zoom during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court considered the urgency of child protection matters and the court's evolving protocols.

One respondent, K.K., who was self-represented, requested an adjournment to retain counsel.

The court granted the Society's request to proceed with the summary judgment motion, allowing K.K. a brief extension to file further materials and retain counsel, emphasizing the need for timely resolution for the children.

The mother in a child protection proceeding brought a motion requesting the appointment of the Office of the Children's Lawyer for her 7-year-old child.

The Society opposed the motion, noting it was seeking Extended Society Care with no access and a summary judgment motion was already scheduled.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the child was under the age of 8 and developmentally immature, and the mother failed to provide evidence that the appointment would assist the court or the child in any specific way.

The applicant husband brought a motion for an order allowing him to attend the questioning of the respondent wife.

The wife opposed his attendance, citing exceptional circumstances based on longstanding abuse and control consistent with their cultural background.

The court found that the wife did not meet the burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances to displace the husband's right to be present.

The court ordered the questioning to proceed with the husband present, but directed that he not speak and be seated away from the wife and out of her line of sight to avoid possible intimidation.