Ethan Winterburn

The parties brought cross-motions regarding interim parenting time, child support, the sale of the matrimonial home, and mobility.

The mother sought supervised parenting time for the father, alleging family violence and COVID-19 concerns, and requested permission to relocate.

The father sought unsupervised parenting time and an order for the immediate sale of the matrimonial home.

The court dismissed the mother's request for supervised access, finding insufficient evidence of risk to the children, and ordered gradual unsupervised parenting time.

The court also ordered the pre-trial sale of the matrimonial home due to financial necessity and dismissed the mother's motion to relocate due to a lack of evidence supporting the move.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking sole care of the parties' three-year-old child, alleging child protection concerns regarding the respondent mother.

The child had been in the applicant's care since December 2019 after a CAS worker found the respondent's home unfit.

The court found that the respondent had since rectified the home conditions and CAS had closed its file with no verified protection concerns.

Concluding there was no material change in circumstances under section 29 of the Children's Law Reform Act, the court dismissed the motion and ordered the child returned to the respondent in accordance with the existing final order.