The applicant father sought an interim order to increase his access visits with his 10-year-old daughter from once a month to every second weekend and to permit unaccompanied air travel for the child.
The respondent mother opposed this, proposing instead an extension of the duration of existing visits.
The court refused to admit the report of the child's treating psychologist due to lack of objectivity and incompleteness.
The court also declined to rely on the Office of the Children's Lawyer reports for increasing access frequency or changing the transportation method, finding that the circumstances did not meet the "exceptional circumstances" or "Bos" criteria for interim reliance on assessment reports.
While acknowledging the "maximum contact" principle, the court found the applicant's cited cases distinguishable.
The court granted the respondent's proposal for extended access duration for specific months, adjusted summer access dates slightly, allowed flexibility in access location within Canada, and ordered disclosure of the respondent's residential address with a restriction.
The primary requests for increased frequency and unaccompanied air travel were denied on an interim basis.
