Jerrod D. Patterson

The Respondent brought a motion seeking an order to compel an Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) clinician to attend for questioning and produce records related to an OCL report.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Respondent failed to satisfy the three-part test under Family Law Rule 20(5) for compelling a non-party's attendance.

Additionally, the Respondent had not filed a statement disputing the OCL report within the timelines required by Family Law Rule 21(e), rendering the report uncontested evidence.

The father brought an interim mobility motion seeking custody and permission to relocate with the two children from Windsor, Ontario to Virginia, USA, due to an employment transfer.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing the children should remain in Windsor due to the COVID-19 pandemic and her recent progress in addressing mental health and parenting issues.

The court applied the tests from Gordon v. Goertz and Plumley v. Plumley, finding that the proposed relocation during a pandemic raised significant unanswered safety and logistical concerns.

The court concluded that the father failed to demonstrate a strong probability of success at trial or compelling circumstances to justify disrupting the children's status quo on an interim basis.

The motion was dismissed, and the existing shared parenting arrangement was maintained.

The parties engaged in high-conflict family litigation over custody and access of their two young children.

The applicant mother sought sole custody and restricted access without overnights, while the respondent father sought joint custody and regular overnight access.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother due to the parties' inability to communicate cooperatively, but granted the father's request for overnight access, implementing a gradual transition plan.

The court also excluded surreptitious recordings made by the mother, declined to include the father's RRSP withdrawals in his income for child support, and dismissed the mother's motion to adduce fresh post-trial evidence.

The applicants brought an urgent motion for interim custody of a four-year-old child and an order prohibiting the respondent from removing the child from Essex County.

The court reviewed the request under the COVID-19 pandemic protocol for suspended court operations.

The triage judge found that the motion met the definition of an urgent family law event as it dealt with the well-being and potential wrongful removal of a child, and ordered that the motion proceed by conference call.