Evan Nicholas Corey

The applicant sought disclosure of the respondent's mental health records and answers to specific questions, arguing their relevance to parenting issues.

The respondent opposed the motion, asserting that the requested clinical notes and records were protected by privilege and that further disclosure was disproportionate.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding that the clinical notes and records satisfied the Wigmore test for privilege and that the remaining disclosure requests were not proportionate, especially given the respondent's intention not to call the medical professionals as expert witnesses at trial.

The applicant father brought an application under the Hague Convention seeking the return of his two-year-old child from Ontario to Australia.

The respondent mother opposed the application, arguing the child's habitual residence was in Ontario and raising exceptions under Articles 13(a) and 13(b).

The court found that the child's habitual residence had become Ontario prior to the alleged wrongful retention, largely due to the parties' relocation plans and the father's abusive conduct and withdrawal of financial support.

Alternatively, the court found the father had acquiesced to the child remaining in Ontario.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion under Rule 14(4.2) of the Family Law Rules seeking an interim transitional parenting schedule culminating in equal parenting time.

The parties separated in April 2020, and the applicant was required to leave the matrimonial home in August 2021 due to criminal charges and bail conditions preventing him from being near the respondent.

The court found no urgency, as the respondent had offered a reasonable interim parenting schedule that would allow the applicant to see the child on six days out of fourteen.

The motion was dismissed, and an interim parenting schedule was ordered based on the respondent's proposal.

The applicant mother sought a stay of an interim order granting the respondent father joint custody and gradually increasing access to their four-year-old child, pending her motion for leave to appeal.

The mother alleged the father was violent and abusive, and that the child was suffering emotional harm from the access attempts.

The court found the mother failed to demonstrate a risk of irreparable harm to the child and that the balance of convenience favoured denying the stay to prevent the extinguishment of the father-child relationship.

The motion for a stay was dismissed, but the court ordered that the maternal grandparents supervise the initial access visits to facilitate a smoother transition.

The applicant mother moved for an extension of time to serve and file her notice of motion for leave to appeal an interim access order, and requested that the motion for leave be heard orally by a single judge.

The court granted the extension of time, finding the mother had a bona fide intention to appeal and a reasonable explanation for the short delay.

However, the court dismissed the request for an oral hearing before a single judge, holding that Rule 62.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure mandatorily requires leave motions to be heard in writing by a panel of the Divisional Court.

Costs of $1,000 were awarded to the respondent father for the procedural issue.

The parties brought cross-motions regarding interim parenting of their three children pending trial.

Following a custody and access assessment by Dr. Horvath, the parties agreed to unsupervised access for the mother but disagreed on the specific schedule and interim custody.

The court ordered a five-week rotation schedule giving the mother one weekend without children to regroup, and maintained the children's primary residence with the father.

The court declined to make an interim order for parallel custody, leaving decision-making issues for the trial judge, and dismissed the mother's request for a report from the Children's Aid Society.