Joshua E. Stevenson

The applicant brought an urgent motion seeking the return of the child, Maddaline, to her primary care as per a separation agreement, after the respondent unilaterally withheld the child following a temporary COVID-19 arrangement.

The respondent sought to maintain primary care based on the child's stated preference.

The court found urgency due to the respondent's self-help actions in changing the long-standing status quo.

While acknowledging the child's views, the court determined that the views were potentially influenced by the circumstances created by the respondent and lacked sufficient consistency over time.

The court ordered the child's immediate return to the applicant's primary care and school in her catchment area, upholding the prior status quo.

Claims for temporary decision-making and a police assistance clause were dismissed without prejudice.

The court issued a supplementary endorsement to its October 25, 2019 trial decision (2019 ONSC 6096) to resolve three outstanding disagreements regarding a parenting schedule: mother's mid-week parenting time, Christmas arrangements, and treatment of school strike days.

The court agreed with the mother's proposals for flexible mid-week parenting time based on her class schedule and for alternating Christmas Eve/Day to maintain sibling bonds.

However, the court rejected the mother's request to treat strike days like professional development days due to inconsistency and short notice.

The parties separated in 2014 and have a 6-year-old child.

The child has been subjected to multiple parenting regimes, including periods where each parent unilaterally withheld the child from the other.

The mother previously made an unfounded sexual abuse allegation against the father.

The father sought sole custody, while the mother sought joint custody with primary residence.

The court found both parents fit but noted significant communication issues.

The court awarded joint custody, with primary residence to the father and final decision-making authority to the father if the parties cannot agree.

The court denied both parties' claims for retroactive and prospective child support, noting the father's modest income and the mother's status as a student.