3 total
The court affirmed a drastic change in custody and suspended contact due to parental alienation.
The appellant mother appealed a trial judge's order granting the respondent father sole custody/decision-making responsibility for their child and temporarily suspending the mother's contact, following a finding of parental alienation.
The appellant argued the trial judge misapplied the best interests test, failed to consider less drastic options, did not adequately weigh the child's views, and misapprehended evidence.
The Court of Appeal found no merit in these submissions, affirming the trial judge's findings of parental alienation and the drastic change in custody as being in the child's best interests, supported by the evidence.
The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay appeal costs.
The court granted a brief extension of time to appeal a parenting order but refused a stay pending appeal to avoid disrupting the child's therapeutic progress.
The moving party (mother) sought an extension of time to appeal a final parenting order and a stay of that order pending appeal.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted the extension of time, finding the three-day delay was minimal and an appeal right existed.
However, the court refused the stay, emphasizing that it was not in the child's best interests to disrupt the therapeutic program and living arrangements established by the trial judge's order, which aimed to rebuild the child's relationship with the father.
The court dismissed both parents' interim motions, maintaining the long-standing status quo for custody and access pending trial.
The father brought a motion to change the primary residence of the parties' teenage son and to obtain specified access pending trial.
The mother opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion to modify the father's access and require family counselling before access resumed.
The court dismissed both motions, finding that the long-standing status quo of the child residing primarily with the mother should be maintained pending trial.
The court held that there were no compelling reasons to disturb the status quo, particularly given the untested nature of competing expert reports on parental alienation and the proximity of trial.
