Brian John Raymond Hall

The appellant father appealed an enforcement order and a restraining order made in a family law matter concerning parental alienation.

The enforcement order granted the respondent mother temporary parenting rights to facilitate the children's enrollment in an intensive therapeutic program ("Family Bridges") to address parental alienation.

The majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding the enforcement order, affirming the motion judge's jurisdiction under Family Law Rules r. 1(8) to make such orders as necessary for compliance, and finding that the orders were in the children's best interests and supported by evidence of the father's alienating conduct.

The restraining order was varied on consent to mitigate its impact on the father's livelihood.

The dissenting judge argued that the motion judge lacked jurisdiction to vary a final order under r. 1(8) without following the specific procedural requirements for changing parenting orders under the Family Law Rules, Children's Law Reform Act, or Divorce Act, and that there was insufficient evidence to support such a drastic therapeutic intervention.

This case addresses a motion and cross-motion in a high-conflict family dispute concerning parental alienation and non-compliance with prior parenting orders.

The Respondent Mother sought temporary custody and an order for the children to attend a "Family Bridges" reunification workshop, alleging the Applicant Father's systematic alienation and sabotage of therapeutic efforts.

The Applicant Father denied the allegations and sought a focused assessment.

The court found the Applicant Father consistently breached previous orders by involving the children in adult disputes and undermining reunification therapy.

The court granted the Respondent Mother's requested relief, including temporary sole custody, enrollment in the Family Bridges program, a restraining order against the Applicant Father, and ordered him to cover the workshop and aftercare costs.

The Applicant Father's cross-motion was dismissed.

The respondent, M.C., moved to vary a consent order to establish a specific access schedule with his child, K., and sought joint custody.

The applicant, J.D., and her parents, P.D. and B.D., opposed, arguing for supervised access or termination, citing K.'s mental health issues and M.C.'s anger.

The court found no material change in circumstances to justify varying the original consent order based on K.'s health, as these issues largely predated the order.

The court rejected P.D. and B.D.'s interpretation of "reasonable access as agreed by the parties" as an "agreement to agree," which would render the consent order unenforceable.

Consequently, the court set aside the entire consent order, temporarily continued joint custody with J.D. and her parents, and established a specific, unsupervised parenting time schedule for M.C. An OCL assessment was ordered, and all parties were mandated to take parent training courses.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking an order for the return of the child from Cobourg to Oshawa and to prevent future changes to the child's residence without consent or court order.

The applicant mother had moved with the child to Cobourg due to family expansion, health issues during pregnancy, and affordability of housing.

The court found a material change in circumstances and, applying the best interests of the child test, determined there were compelling reasons to allow the interim move to Cobourg.

The respondent's motion was dismissed.

This is a costs decision following a temporary motion heard on April 9, 2015, with the decision released on May 11, 2015.

The respondent sought expanded access to two children, including overnight access and ancillary parenting orders.

The applicant opposed the transfer and sought to change the child's counsellor.

The court granted the respondent alternate weekend access and Wednesday access, denied the applicant's request to change counsellors, and made ancillary orders regarding extra-curricular activities and telephone access.

The respondent was successful on the motion and had served an offer to settle that was not accepted.

The court awarded full costs to the respondent.

The respondent father brought a motion for expanded access to his two children, including overnight access.

The applicant mother opposed the motion and sought to maintain the existing day-access schedule.

The mother also brought a cross-motion to change the children's counsellor.

The court found that after over one year since separation, the children were ready for expanded overnight access.

The court granted the father's motion for increased access on alternate weekends and mid-week overnight access, and dismissed the mother's motion to change counsellors.

The decision emphasizes that children benefit from maximum contact with both parents consistent with their best interests, and that the party seeking to restrict access must justify such restrictions.