E. Lenkinski

The applicant father brought a motion for temporary access to the parties’ four‑year‑old child pending completion of a s. 30 parenting assessment.

The respondent mother sought supervised access relying in part on a pediatrician’s letter suggesting the child may have experienced trauma during prior visits.

The court found the purported expert opinion unreliable because it was based largely on the mother’s subjective account and incomplete information without input from the father.

Finding no credible evidence of safety concerns and noting previous orders granting unsupervised access, the court ordered a structured temporary access schedule including weekday visits and gradually expanding overnight access, while directing that questioning on affidavits be completed.

The respondent brought a motion to set aside an ex parte custody order granting the applicant temporary sole custody of one child and access to another, and to dismiss the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction.

The court held that the applicant had failed to provide full and fair disclosure when obtaining the ex parte order and that the circumstances required by the Family Law Rules for a motion without notice were not established.

The order was therefore set aside.

The court further considered jurisdiction under s. 22 of the Children’s Law Reform Act and found insufficient evidence on the motion record to determine the child’s habitual residence due to conflicting affidavit evidence.

The court ordered a trial of the issue of jurisdiction regarding custody and access.