The applicant father brought a motion for interim unsupervised access to the parties' 5-year-old child.
The respondent mother brought a cross-motion seeking to maintain supervised access, which had been in place following an investigation by the Children's Aid Society and police into her allegations of inappropriate behaviour by the applicant.
The investigation concluded with no safety concerns verified.
The court found that the relevant status quo was the liberal access that existed prior to the unverified allegations, not the restrictive supervised access regime that followed.
The court ordered interim unsupervised access for the applicant, gradually increasing to include overnights, and requested the involvement of the Children's Lawyer.
