The respondent brought a motion to change a final custody and access order, seeking supervised access to his daughter after being denied access for approximately three years.
The respondent had been convicted of sexual assault of a child in 2010 and was subject to a prohibition order restricting contact with minors.
The applicant opposed the motion, arguing there had been no material change in circumstances.
The court found that the respondent failed to establish a material change in circumstances relevant to access, as his circumstances remained substantially unchanged—he continued to be diagnosed as a likely pedophile, remained subject to the prohibition order, had undergone no treatment, and his only change was a change of mind.
The court rejected the respondent's claim that the applicant had agreed to allow unsupervised access in violation of the court order, finding his credibility questionable.
The motion was dismissed.
