The applicant filed two motions: one for a declaration of contempt against the respondent for non-compliance with orders, and another to modify supervised access arrangements for their child, Figaro, and to compel the respondent to provide information about the child.
The contempt motion was dismissed due to improper service.
For the second motion, the court, considering the child's best interests and expert recommendations, ordered weekly supervised visits for the applicant in Ottawa with a social worker, and directed the respondent to provide school, activity, and health information about the child.
The court declined to modify the existing supervised access order to allow visits at the applicant's home, emphasizing the need for supervised contact until the upcoming trial and noting the history of jurisdictional changes by the applicant.
