Dayna Shoot

The applicant father sought expanded and equal parenting time with the parties' two-and-a-half-year-old daughter.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, arguing that the child was struggling with developmental challenges including autism spectrum disorder and that maintaining the existing parenting arrangement was in the child's best interests.

The court found that the respondent had unreasonably created a new status quo by limiting the applicant's parenting time after separation, contrary to the parties' pre-separation equal arrangement.

The court granted the applicant's motion for equal parenting time, finding that the child's professional reports supported greater contact with both parents and that the applicant's more flexible approach to the child's development aligned better with professional recommendations.

The applicant father sought an urgent case conference regarding access to the parties' 5 ½ year old child, which the respondent mother disputed as urgent or pressing.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence of prior settlement discussions, which was deemed a precondition for such urgent requests during the COVID-19 suspension of regular court operations.

The decision reiterated the test for urgency and pressing issues, emphasizing the need for immediate, serious, definite, and particularized concerns, and diligent settlement efforts.