Cory Deyarmond

The Society sought extended care for H.M., who was found in need of protection.

The mother, B.T., sought H.M.'s return.

The court found that while H.M. continued to need protection, the risk was low and B.T.'s parenting was adequate.

The court critically examined the Society's restrictive access policies and communication, which contributed to the strained relationship.

The final order placed H.M. in the mother's care under Society supervision for six months, with specific terms for communication and support, and no access for the father.

The appellant father appealed a protection order concerning his twin sons, which had been dismissed by the Divisional Court.

His appeal to the Court of Appeal repeated allegations against various judges, social workers, and lawyers, and included claims of obstruction of justice.

Following a notice under Rule 2.1.01, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting the appellant's pattern of accusations, litigation of already decided issues, and failure to pay costs.

The mother sought to relocate with the child from Prince Edward County to Burlington, seeking sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence.

The father opposed the relocation and sought shared parenting time, later requesting primary residence for himself.

The court, applying the best interests of the child test under the Divorce Act, granted the mother sole decision-making authority and primary residence, finding her plan more child-focused and noting the father's poor communication and uncooperative behaviour.

The relocation was authorized, and a detailed parenting schedule was established.