Christopher Mamo

The applicant mother brought a motion to enforce a consent order requiring the respondent father to comply with a court-ordered therapeutic reunification process and to provide photographs and weekly updates about the children.

Over 5.5 years of litigation, multiple clinicians found the father obstructed the children's relationship with the mother, while psychological assessments confirmed the mother posed no risk to the children.

The court found multiple breaches of the consent order, declined to exercise its discretion in favour of the non-complying father given his pattern of chronic non-compliance, and imposed monetary penalties under Rule 1(8)(a.1) of the Family Law Rules to incentivize future compliance with the therapeutic process.

The applicant brought a motion to appoint a replacement arbitrator after the original arbitrator resigned.

The respondents argued that the resignation terminated the arbitration process and the matter should return to court.

The court interpreted the parties' Mediation-Arbitration Agreement and the Arbitration Act, 1991, finding that a resignation constitutes a termination of the arbitrator's appointment, requiring the appointment of a replacement.

The court appointed the applicant's proposed replacement arbitrator and awarded costs to the applicant.

The parties returned to court to address temporary parenting arrangements and the appointment of a section 30 assessor.

The father and paternal grandparents sought expanded, in-person parenting time during the summer, while the mother opposed in-person visits and requested that the assessment be conducted entirely virtually.

The court found that virtual visits had been positive and ordered the mother to travel to Ottawa with the children for the summer to facilitate graduated in-person visits.

The court also appointed the father's proposed assessor, requiring in-person observation visits due to the complex family dynamics and allegations of domestic violence.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of $20,361.76 following a motion where she obtained a preservation order and financial disclosure after the respondent breached a prior court order by surreptitiously refinancing a property.

The court found the respondent acted in bad faith by intentionally breaching the order to conceal information.

However, because success on the motion was divided and the applicant also acted somewhat unreasonably, the court awarded costs of $15,000 to the applicant, payable upon delayed terms due to the respondent's unemployment.

The respondent father brought a motion to vary a temporary access order to increase his parenting time with the parties' two children, aged 16 and 11.

The mother opposed the motion, citing a history of domestic violence and the children's expressed fears.

Relying on Voice of the Child reports, the court declined to force the 16-year-old to attend access against her will, noting her age and right to withdraw from parental control.

The court also dismissed the father's request to increase access to the 11-year-old, finding that the maximum contact principle was outweighed by the child's best interests and need for security.