Julia Moote

This trial decision addresses parenting time, decision-making responsibility, and child support between common-law parents.

The court found the respondent engaged in coercive and controlling behavior by unilaterally withholding the child and making unsubstantiated Children's Aid Society (CAS) reports.

While declining to order equal shared parenting due to logistical distance, the court expanded the applicant's parenting time and granted him final decision-making authority for health and medical matters, with the respondent retaining decision-making for education.

The court also determined the applicant's income for child support, set post-application arrears, and ordered ongoing child support, declining to order retroactive support for a period where the respondent's unilateral actions pre-empted a shared parenting plan.

The respondent, M.C., moved to vary a consent order to establish a specific access schedule with his child, K., and sought joint custody.

The applicant, J.D., and her parents, P.D. and B.D., opposed, arguing for supervised access or termination, citing K.'s mental health issues and M.C.'s anger.

The court found no material change in circumstances to justify varying the original consent order based on K.'s health, as these issues largely predated the order.

The court rejected P.D. and B.D.'s interpretation of "reasonable access as agreed by the parties" as an "agreement to agree," which would render the consent order unenforceable.

Consequently, the court set aside the entire consent order, temporarily continued joint custody with J.D. and her parents, and established a specific, unsupervised parenting time schedule for M.C. An OCL assessment was ordered, and all parties were mandated to take parent training courses.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking to reinstate access with his daughter, modify the parenting schedule, obtain make-up access time, police enforcement, and reduce child support and section 7 expenses.

The primary issue of access reinstatement was resolved prior to the hearing as the applicant mother agreed to resume the existing parenting schedule.

The court found that the remaining issues, including make-up access, increased summer access, police enforcement, and financial adjustments, did not meet the test for urgency during the COVID-19 emergency period.

The motion was dismissed as not urgent, without prejudice to the respondent's right to renew it later.