Barbara Hotson

The applicants (maternal grandparents) sought custody of their grandson, Grayson, from his mother (respondent).

The court assessed the best interests of the child, considering factors such as stability, the child's views and preferences, the caregivers' abilities, and exposure to family violence.

The court found that the child's primary residence should remain with the grandfather due to the mother's transient lifestyle, inconsistent care, and exposure of the child to domestic conflict.

Sole decision-making responsibility was granted to the grandfather, with a requirement to consult the mother.

Parenting time for the mother was ordered to commence via videoconference, with reconciliation counselling mandated before in-person visits.

The request for child support from the mother was dismissed due to her current stay-at-home status and pregnancy.

The Respondent father (JHS) brought a motion for summary judgment seeking final orders regarding decision-making, child residence, and parenting time for the parties' eight-year-old child.

The Applicant mother (JLD) opposed the motion and was self-represented.

The court applied Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules and the Hryniak v. Mauldin test, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court thoroughly considered the child's best interests under section 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act, including the history of family violence, the child's needs for stability and education, the nature of parental relationships, and each parent's willingness to support the child's relationship with the other parent.

The court found that JLD was unable to meet the child's educational and physical needs and was unwilling to support the child's relationship with JHS.

Consequently, JHS's motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing JLD's application, and awarding JHS sole decision-making authority and primary residence for the child, along with a detailed parenting schedule.