The moving party father sought an urgent stay of an interim order granting the responding party mother sole decision-making responsibility regarding their eight-year-old child's medical treatment, pending a motion for leave to appeal.
The mother wished to follow a pediatric endocrinologist's advice to commence treatment for a medical condition, while the father opposed it.
The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the father failed to establish a serious issue to be determined on the motion for leave to appeal, as there were no conflicting decisions on the legal principles and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's factual findings.
The court also found that the balance of convenience favoured expeditious decision-making in the child's best interests.
