Jorge Saenz

The applicant mother sought an urgent order to enforce existing access arrangements and obtain make-up time, including a police enforcement clause, due to the respondent father's unilateral withholding of access.

The father brought a cross-motion to restrict the mother's access to video conferencing until counselling was completed, citing concerns about the mother's partner and the child's safety, despite a Children's Aid Society (CAS) investigation not verifying his allegations.

The court found the mother's motion urgent, criticized the father's unilateral actions and his undermining of the child's relationship with the mother, and dismissed the father's cross-motion.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking to restore court-ordered access to the child, which the respondent father had unilaterally suspended.

The father alleged the mother violated a condition regarding her partner's presence, despite a Children's Aid Society investigation finding the allegations "not verified." The court, acting as Triage Judge, found the matter "potentially urgent" given the ongoing denial of access and scheduled it for a full hearing, setting timelines for responding materials.

The court also provided guidance on issues to be addressed at the hearing, including CAS recommendations, reconciliation counselling, and the impropriety of self-help remedies for non-compliance with orders.