The applicant father brought a motion for increased parenting time, and the respondent mother brought a cross-motion for a declaration of non-parentage, arguing the applicant was merely a sperm donor.
The court found that because there was no written pre-conception agreement as contemplated by the Children's Law Reform Act, the conflicting evidence regarding the parties' oral agreement created a genuine issue requiring a trial.
Both motions were dismissed, maintaining the status quo for parenting time to ensure stability for the child pending a final determination.
