Ron Stewart

The respondent brought a motion to remove the applicant's counsel and for equal parenting time.

The applicant brought a counter-motion for interim custody, access, and child support.

The court dismissed the motion to remove counsel.

Finding that the applicant was the primary parent prior to separation, the court granted interim custody to the applicant and specified access to the respondent, subject to conditions regarding alcohol consumption and smoking.

The respondent was also ordered to pay interim child support and a share of section 7 expenses.

The Association for the Protection of Amherst Island appealed the Director's decision to issue a Renewable Energy Approval to Windlectric Inc. for a 26-turbine wind facility on Amherst Island.

The Appellant argued the project would cause serious harm to human health from turbine and concrete batch plant emissions, and serious and irreversible harm to animal life, specifically Bobolink, raptors/owls, bats, and Blanding's turtles.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found that the Appellant failed to meet the statutory onus under the Environmental Protection Act to prove that the project would cause serious harm to human health or serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment.

The appeal was dismissed and the Director's decision was confirmed.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking an updated custody and access assessment under s. 30 of the Children’s Law Reform Act and interim joint custody.

The parties had previously consented to a parenting order following an earlier assessment recommending joint custody and progressively increasing parenting time.

Evidence before the court described ongoing conflict between the parents and allegations of conduct affecting the child’s transitions between homes and overall wellbeing.

The court held that significant changes in the parties’ dynamics and concerns about the child’s distress warranted an updated assessment by the original assessor.

The request for interim joint custody was declined and counselling for the child was ordered.

The appellant mother appealed a consent order implementing the recommendations of a jointly retained assessor for parallel parenting.

She argued the judge failed to consider the children's best interests and that the assessor's investigation was flawed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the judge made no error in giving effect to the parties' agreement to be bound by the assessor's recommendations, and the appellant failed to demonstrate any palpable and overriding error in the assessor's factual findings.

The applicant mother brought a motion to set aside access terms agreed to in Minutes of Settlement and to suspend the respondent father's access to the parties' child until supervised access could be arranged.

Evidence included allegations of emotional instability, criminal charges, and a negative family assessment recommending sole custody to the mother with supervised access for the father.

The respondent father argued the settlement terms were binding and alleged misconduct by the mother, including attempts to interfere with his relationship with the child.

The court held that the best interests of the child required that access occur only in a supervised setting by a neutral third party.

The applicant's motion was granted and supervised access ordered.