On an interim family law motion, the responding parent sought immediate implementation of recommendations from a s. 112 Office of the Children’s Lawyer report shortly before a scheduled custody trial.
The court reviewed the governing principles regarding reliance on untested assessment reports at the motion stage and the strong presumption in favour of maintaining the status quo pending trial.
However, evidence in the report and the parties’ materials revealed urgent concerns regarding the children’s safety, including repeated incidents of the other parent leaving the children unattended overnight and misleading authorities.
The court concluded that the circumstances justified limited interim intervention in the children’s best interests.
A temporary order significantly increased the moving parent’s parenting time, granted decision‑making authority over education and health issues, and suspended child support pending trial.
