Dr. Dilys Haner

The 19-year-old defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of impaired driving causing death and three counts of impaired driving causing bodily harm after driving at 168 km/h through a red light with a blood alcohol concentration more than twice the legal limit.

The collision killed three children and seriously injured three others.

The court weighed the catastrophic harm and the need for denunciation and deterrence against the defendant's youth, guilty plea, genuine remorse, intellectual disability, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The defendant was sentenced to 8 years in prison, less credit for pre-sentence custody, and a 20-year driving prohibition.

The case involves two competing parenting motions to review and expand the father's parenting time with his six-year-old daughter, Adelle, following his demonstrated sobriety from alcohol.

The court considered the child's best interests, the father's consistent negative alcohol tests, and the mother's concerns regarding the pace of expansion and marijuana use.

The court expanded the father's mid-week overnight contact and maintained the existing "Happy Fridays" schedule, but limited weekend overnights to Sunday evening return.

The court also refined the alcohol testing regime and set a specific Christmas parenting schedule for 2024.

The applicant father brought a motion for an interim parenting order to remove the children from the respondent mother's primary care, alleging parental alienation.

The father sought sole decision-making responsibility and enrollment in a therapeutic program to repair his relationship with the children.

The mother and the Office of the Children's Lawyer opposed the motion, citing the children's strong wishes not to have contact with the father.

The court found that the issue of alienation was a triable issue and that a custody reversal was not in the children's best interests at this stage.

The motion was dismissed, the trial was expedited, and an order was made for the children to commence written email communication with the father with the assistance of their counsellor.

The applicant father brought a motion for non-compliance against the respondent mother regarding her failure to obey court orders relating to parenting time, therapy for the children, her own therapy, and costs.

The mother brought a cross-motion alleging the father failed to pay child support arrears.

The court found the mother non-compliant with multiple orders, noting her ongoing alienating behaviour and failure to facilitate the children's relationship with the father.

The mother's cross-motion was dismissed as no arrears were owed.

The court ordered specific remedies under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, including the resumption of virtual parenting time, the appointment of specific therapists for the children, and an order restricting the mother from bringing further motions without leave of the court.

The appellant father appealed a parenting order, seeking sole decision-making responsibility and exclusive residence for the children due to alleged parental alienation by the respondent mother.

The trial judge had previously found alienation but declined to reverse custody due to intervening circumstances (father's new child, pandemic, children's immediate mental health).

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence from a psychologist but dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the lower court's holistic assessment of the children's best interests, which prioritized their immediate mental health and stability over a disruptive custody reversal, especially given the new family dynamics and pandemic stressors.

The court ordered a brief review hearing in one year to ensure compliance with therapy orders.

This decision reviews previous custody and access orders following a finding of parental alienation by the respondent mother.

Despite the mother's continued uncooperative and alienating behavior, which has exacerbated the children's severe anxiety and resistance to contact with the applicant father, the court declined to transfer sole custody to the father.

The court maintained shared custody with primary residence with the mother, citing the children's fragile mental health, the ongoing pandemic, and the recent birth of a new child to the applicant and his partner.

The court ordered comprehensive, long-term therapeutic interventions for the children, the mother, and the father, with a designated case manager to oversee the process, emphasizing the paramountcy of the children's best interests.