Courtney Shields

The respondent mother sought an order for the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) to prepare a s. 112 report or, alternatively, a private parenting plan assessment for the parties' nine-year-old child.

The applicant father opposed, arguing the report was unnecessary.

The court found sufficient grounds to order a s. 112 report, citing the child's struggles in school, a new medical diagnosis (retinoschisis), challenges with sleeping alone, and expressed anxieties about the father's home.

The court emphasized the importance of obtaining the child's views and preferences.

The motion was granted, and the mother was awarded partial indemnity costs of $1,700.

The applicant sought interim child support and imputation of income to the respondent, who claimed inability to work due to physical limitations.

The court found the respondent intentionally unemployed but did not accept his doctor's opinion as expert evidence for complete inability to work.

Income was imputed at minimum wage for 30 hours/week, resulting in a lower child support amount than sought by the applicant.

Issues of retroactive support and life insurance were deferred to trial.

Costs were divided due to mixed success.

The Applicant Mother and Respondent Father, who have a child with special needs, were before the court on a motion for parenting time and a cross-motion for child support.

The court addressed only the parenting time aspect, finding a material change in circumstances due to the Father's lack of contact with the child for eight months.

The court ordered a gradual restoration of the Father's parenting time, starting with specific daytime visits, and maintained the Mother's sole decision-making authority with a requirement to consult the Father.

The Mother's requests for a parenting course for the Father, OCL involvement, and unilateral passport/travel authority were denied.

The Father's request for joint decision-making and immediate equal parenting time was also denied.

The applicant father sought a temporary order to change the children's primary residence from the respondent mother's care to his, pending a final hearing of his Motion to Change.

The respondent mother sought dismissal of the motion and an order varying the children's exchange point.

The court found no compelling and urgent need to change the children's primary residence on an interim basis, noting the high burden of proof for such a change and the risks of disturbing the status quo based on untested affidavit evidence.

The father's motion for change of primary residence was dismissed.

The mother's request to vary the exchange point was also denied, as no urgent need was demonstrated.