Edward Rae

A custody dispute concerning a four-year-old child, Renee Donna Christine Gilson, between her mother Chantalle Battiston and father Gregory Gilson.

The parents had shared equal week-about custody since their separation in January 2009.

The mother relocated to Richmond Hill in June 2010 without court approval.

The court determined that while both parents were equally devoted and capable, custody should be awarded to the mother based on the principle of maximizing contact between the child and both parents.

The father was awarded access every second weekend during the school year and week-about access during summer months.

The mother was permitted to relocate and was subject to conditions including abstinence from alcohol when the child was in her care and ongoing mental health support.

The applicant sought spousal support from the respondent, claiming they had cohabited as common law spouses for at least three years.

The respondent disputed the claim, arguing that the three-year threshold had not been met and that he had no financial obligation to the applicant.

The court found that the parties had cohabited as common law spouses for approximately eleven years, commencing around 1993 when the respondent moved into the applicant's residence at 907 Premier Road.

The court ordered ongoing spousal support, recognizing the applicant's contributions to the relationship and the economic consequences of the relationship's breakdown.

The court also considered the respondent's subsequent family obligations but determined that these did not eliminate his support obligations to the applicant.

The appellant appealed a decision making the children Crown wards without access, arguing she was denied procedural fairness at the status review hearing.

The children had previously been placed in her custody but were apprehended after a police incident involving alleged crack cocaine trafficking at her home.

At the time of the status review hearing, the appellant had relapsed into drug use and was in default of court orders.

The Court of Appeal found no procedural unfairness, noting the appellant and her lawyer participated in the hearing and no adjournment was requested.

The appeal was dismissed as the disposition was clearly in the best interests of the children.