Jennifer K. Howard

The applicant paternal grandmother brought a motion for access to her nine-year-old granddaughter following the death of the child's father.

The respondent mother consented to virtual access for the grandmother but opposed the participation of the child's paternal aunt, citing concerns about being undermined.

Applying the Chapman framework, the court found that the aunt had a positive relationship with the child, the mother's decision to terminate access was arbitrary and stemmed from estate litigation rather than parenting concerns, and the mother's actions imperiled the relationship.

The court granted the motion, allowing the aunt to participate in the virtual access visits.

The respondent father brought a motion to resume unsupervised access to his daughter after completing a six-month period of supervised access, which had been agreed upon following unfounded allegations of sexual abuse.

The applicant mother opposed the resumption of unsupervised access and attempted to introduce new evidence to relitigate the issue.

The court found that the respondent was generally successful on the motion and awarded him costs.

Applying the principles of costs under the Family Law Rules and the Courts of Justice Act, the court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent $2,500 in costs.

The parties engaged in a high-conflict custody dispute over their 6-year-old son following their separation.

The mother sought sole custody, while the father initially sought joint custody but amended his claim to sole custody at trial.

A section 30 assessment recommended a parallel parenting regime, but the court rejected this due to the entrenched conflict and inability of the parents to communicate effectively.

The court awarded sole custody and primary residence to the mother, finding she was better positioned to provide a stable environment and multidimensional guidance, and was more likely to foster the child's relationship with the father.

The father was granted a specified access schedule.

The court also ruled on the admissibility of out-of-court statements made by the child regarding alleged physical discipline in the father's home, finding them inadmissible for the truth of their contents due to reliability concerns.

The father was ordered to pay child support in accordance with the Guidelines.