Jena L. Wagner

The applicant sought an interim variation of a parenting order to relocate two of five children (ages 11 and 13) from the respondent's primary care in Kapuskasing, Ontario to his residence in Mount Elgin, approximately 10 hours away.

The respondent opposed the relocation and sought the return of the children.

The court found that the applicant had not met the burden of demonstrating that interim relocation was in the best interests of the children.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion and ordered the return of the children to the respondent's care, finding that the applicant's use of self-help tactics and failure to follow the prescribed statutory procedure for relocation raised serious concerns about his parenting judgment.

The respondent brought a motion to vary an interim access order, seeking reduced and supervised access for the applicant, citing an alleged sexual assault of a child by a neighbour and criminal charges laid against the applicant.

The applicant opposed the reduction and supervision, agreeing only to access at his mother's residence.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion, finding no basis to change the original order, and expressed skepticism regarding the respondent's allegations and the timing of the criminal charges.

The court found the applicant's report to CAS appropriate and maintained the original access schedule with minor modifications regarding exchange locations.

The Applicant mother brought an urgent motion and the Respondent father a cross-motion seeking immediate interim relief regarding their two children.

The court addressed issues of primary residence, schooling, and parenting time, emphasizing the best interests of the children and the principle against unilateral self-help.

The court found that a post-separation status quo had been established with the mother, which the father unilaterally disrupted.

The court ordered the children's return to the mother's primary care in Oxford County, with the father having alternate weekend parenting time, and imposed conditions on both parents regarding substance use and adherence to medical advice.

The Applicant mother and Respondent father brought motions concerning urgent residential and parenting arrangements for their three children (ages 8, 6, and 2) amidst their separation and the imminent sale of the matrimonial home.

The Applicant sought sole custody and permission to relocate with the children to Windsor, citing financial necessity and her role as primary caregiver.

The Respondent sought joint custody, equal parenting time, and for the children to remain in Oxford County, continuing at their current school, having purchased a new home in the school's catchment area.

The court found the evidentiary record insufficient to make a definitive interim order, particularly regarding the Applicant's financial ability to remain in Oxford County.

The court issued an interim interim order allowing the Applicant and children to temporarily reside in Windsor until October 2, 2020, with specified weekend access for the Respondent, while directing both parties to file supplementary financial and employment-related evidence for a renewed hearing.