David Danielson

The father brought a motion seeking unsupervised parenting time with the child, V, through a graduated transition plan.

The mother opposed, also bringing a procedural motion to strike portions of the father's evidence and arguing the main motion was previously settled.

The court partially granted the motion to strike, finding certain expert and opinion evidence inadmissible.

It also determined the main motion was not settled.

Applying the best interests of the child principle under the Children's Law Reform Act, the court found that while unsupervised parenting time was not yet appropriate, a gradual increase in supervised parenting time by the paternal grandmother was in the child's best interest, given the child's increased comfort and the temporary nature of supervision.

The applicant sought various forms of relief, including damages for family violence, child support, special expenses, advance costs for tort claims, and a restraining order against the primary respondent, who did not participate in the proceedings.

The court granted orders consolidating claims, adjusting child support obligations, ordering advance costs, compelling non-party document production, and issuing a restraining order.

Costs were awarded against the non-participating respondent.

The applicant children's aid society brought a motion for an order placing the child in its temporary care and custody.

The respondent father and stepmother sought the child's return to their care, while the respondent mother sought unsupervised access.

The court found credible and trustworthy evidence that the child was exposed to a high conflict environment and inappropriate discipline in the father and stepmother's care, creating a risk of emotional and physical harm.

The court concluded that a supervision order would not adequately protect the child and ordered that the child remain in the temporary care and custody of the society with specified access for the respondents.

The father brought a motion for summary judgment seeking parenting and child support orders.

The mother consented to the parenting terms but opposed child support, claiming undue hardship due to her limited income and having three other children in her full-time care.

The court granted joint decision-making responsibility, with the father having final authority if disputes cannot be resolved.

The court dismissed the mother's undue hardship claim due to insufficient evidence regarding her household standard of living and ordered her to pay table amount child support and arrears based on her most recent line 150 income.

The mother brought a motion to vary an interim order that had granted the father sole care and custody of their four-year-old child.

Following the interim order, the father restricted the mother's access to FaceTime calls only.

The court found that the father's unilateral decision to withhold in-person access constituted a material change in circumstances that negatively affected the child.

The court varied the interim order to grant the parties joint legal custody and awarded the mother extensive daytime parenting time, finding it in the child's best interests to restore in-person contact.

The parties, the child's uncle (primary caregiver) and the biological parents, brought various motions regarding custody, access, mobility, and contempt.

The father sought to have the uncle found in contempt for denying physical and telephone access.

The mother sought primary residence or increased access.

The uncle sought to relocate with the child to Perth.

The court struck portions of the father's affidavit for containing argument and case law.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding the father had been unreasonable and prioritizing the child's best interests.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the uncle's loss of housing in Cornwall, the court permitted the uncle to temporarily relocate to Perth with the child.

Both parents were granted increased access, but requests for police enforcement clauses were denied to prevent further conflict.