The parties were involved in a child custody dispute over two children.
The biological father had temporary custody, but the children's psychological father (the mother's former partner) brought a motion to change the temporary order and implement the recommendations of an Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) section 112 report, which recommended custody in his favour.
The biological father brought a cross-motion to relocate the children to a new city due to his changing housing situation.
The court found that while OCL recommendations should rarely be implemented on an interim basis, the impending relocation constituted an exceptional circumstance requiring a change.
The court granted temporary custody to the psychological father, finding he had historically been the primary caregiver and the children had a strong emotional attachment to him.
