Julie Lamothe

The respondent, the biological father, brought a motion to vary interim parenting time and primary residence of his six-year-old child, seeking to have the child primarily reside with him and to eliminate the applicant's (the child's step-mother) parenting time.

The applicant opposed, asserting her significant parental role.

The court applied the best interests of the child test under the Children's Law Reform Act, finding the applicant had played a central parental role and was a stable force.

The court noted the respondent's substance abuse, violent and harassing behaviour, and his unwillingness to support the child's relationship with the applicant.

The respondent's motion was dismissed, and the existing temporary order, which provided for the child to primarily reside with the applicant and granted the respondent specific parenting time, was maintained with additional conditions.

The respondent mother sought to set aside a final order, including provisions for retroactive and ongoing child support and costs, which resulted from an uncontested trial where her pleadings were struck and she was noted in default.

She argued she was not made aware of her lawyer being removed from the record or of the father's motion to strike, claiming the email address used for notice was not in use.

The court granted the mother's motion to set aside the final order and the order striking her pleadings, finding that she did not receive adequate notice of the motion to strike, presented an arguable case on the merits, and acted promptly upon learning of the order, despite her prior inattentiveness to the proceedings.

The applicant, Karen Beaudette, sought to set aside an order noting her in default and a subsequent final order from an uncontested trial.

The respondent, Michael James, sought to dismiss the applicant's motion and to prohibit her from bringing further motions without leave until outstanding costs were paid.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding she did not act promptly, failed to provide an adequate explanation for non-compliance with the Family Law Rules, and did not establish an arguable case on the merits.

The court granted the respondent's request to prohibit the applicant from bringing further motions without leave until all outstanding costs orders are paid.