Craig Ticalo

The mother and father both brought motions regarding interim parenting time for their 9-year-old child.

The father was facing criminal charges for sexual offences against two female children, including the child's stepsister, and was subject to bail conditions prohibiting contact with children.

The mother sought to deny the father parenting time, while the father sought supervised and virtual parenting time.

The court found that the father had not disentitled himself to parenting time as he had not been convicted and retained the presumption of innocence.

The court ordered interim supervised parenting time for the father at the Sudbury Supervised Access Centre once a week for up to two hours, and permitted the child to initiate virtual contact twice a week.

Following the successful dismissal of the plaintiff's action on a motion for summary judgment, the defendants, the University of Sudbury and Pierre Zundel, sought costs.

The defendants had previously advised the plaintiff that he had no right to sue and had served an offer to settle for a dismissal without costs, which was not accepted.

The court awarded the defendants substantial indemnity costs in the amount of $38,969.21, finding the amount reasonable and proportionate.

The respondent father sought to vary a custody order to permit the 14-year-old child to reside with him in Gatineau, Quebec, rather than with the applicant mother in Capreol, Ontario.

The child, represented by counsel from the Office of the Children's Lawyer, expressed a strong and consistent wish to live with her father.

The court found that the child had attained sufficient maturity for her age to make this decision independently, without undue influence from either parent.

The court determined that a material change in circumstances had occurred and that it was in the child's best interests to reside with her father, effective January 1, 2013, subject to resolution of outstanding issues regarding child support and access.

The Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario held a pre-hearing teleconference regarding a Notice of Proposal to revoke the respondent's liquor licence.

The Board ordered the licensee and the Registrar to complete mutual disclosure of witness lists and evidence summaries by February 26, 2009, ahead of the scheduled hearing.