Jessica Lauren Bonnema

The case involves two competing parenting motions to review and expand the father's parenting time with his six-year-old daughter, Adelle, following his demonstrated sobriety from alcohol.

The court considered the child's best interests, the father's consistent negative alcohol tests, and the mother's concerns regarding the pace of expansion and marijuana use.

The court expanded the father's mid-week overnight contact and maintained the existing "Happy Fridays" schedule, but limited weekend overnights to Sunday evening return.

The court also refined the alcohol testing regime and set a specific Christmas parenting schedule for 2024.

The applicant sought exclusive possession of the matrimonial home due to the respondent's creation of an intolerable living environment, characterized by filth and damage.

The respondent moved to set aside an ex parte order granting exclusive possession, alleging material non-disclosure and seeking his own exclusive possession and primary residency of the children.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion and granted the applicant's renewed motion, finding compelling evidence of the deplorable living conditions and the respondent's inadequate explanations.

The court also granted the applicant interim sole decision-making and primary residency for the children, with parenting time for the respondent based on the children's wishes.

The applicant father brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the respondent mother's motion to change a final consent parenting order.

The mother sought joint decision-making responsibility and shared parenting time, arguing her mental health had improved.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, as the mother failed to provide admissible evidence of a material change in circumstances since the original order.

The summary judgment motion was granted, the motion to change was dismissed, and the mother was ordered to seek leave before commencing any further motions to change.

The applicant mother sought an interim order permitting her to relocate with the parties' 5-year-old daughter from Sarnia to Aurora for employment purposes.

The respondent father opposed the relocation and sought shared parenting time and joint decision-making responsibility.

The court found that the mother had met the burden of proving the relocation was in the child's best interests, noting the financial benefit to the family unit and the mother's inability to find suitable employment in Sarnia.

The court granted the interim relocation, awarded the mother decision-making responsibility for education and extracurricular activities, ordered joint decision-making for health and religion, and set out a parenting schedule for the father.