Denita Cunningham

Following motions regarding child access, contempt, and a publication ban, both parties sought costs.

The father had brought a motion to change access after being criminally charged, and a contempt motion which he later withdrew.

The mother had sought a publication ban and severely restricted access.

The court found divided success, noting the father's contempt motion was inappropriate and the mother's position on access was unreasonable.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The respondent father sought an interim order to vary the access provisions of a final order due to criminal charges laid against him, including sexual assault and sexual interference involving children.

The applicant mother opposed the father's proposed terms, advocating for stricter, professionally supervised access.

The court found a material and exceptional change in circumstances warranting an interim variation under its parens patriae jurisdiction.

Balancing the seriousness of the unproven allegations against the father's lack of prior record and the child's need for contact, the court ordered supervised access by the father's wife, S.M., with specific conditions, rejecting the mother's request for professional supervision due to cost and the availability of an approved supervisor.