Kathryn Junger

The father brought an urgent motion to enforce a previous endorsement that maintained the status quo parenting arrangement.

The mother had previously brought an unsuccessful urgent motion to change the arrangement, and subsequently unilaterally denied the father his scheduled weekend with one of the children.

The court ordered the mother to comply with the status quo and strongly criticized her for engaging in aggressive, strategic litigation and failing to accept the previous court decision.

Following a motion for increased parenting time where the applicant father was granted expanded access, the court determined the issue of costs.

The court found that while the applicant was overall more successful than the respondent mother, both parties had taken unreasonable and overly aggressive positions regarding the time-sharing schedule.

The applicant failed to serve a formal Offer to Settle, and the respondent had limited financial means.

Balancing these factors, the court awarded the applicant $4,200 in costs, representing approximately 50% of his total legal fees and disbursements.

The appellant mother appealed a trial decision making two of her children Crown wards without access and granting custody of her third child, who has Down syndrome, to the biological father without access to the mother.

The mother argued the trial judge erred in assessing evidence, including child hearsay and medical evidence, and in denying her access.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence, credibility findings, or determination that access was not in the children's best interests given the mother's history of physical discipline, lack of insight, and failure to address the children's needs.

The respondent father brought an emergency motion for custody or joint custody and equal time-sharing of the parties' 21-month-old daughter.

The applicant mother had suspended the father's access based on allegations of sexual abuse related to a diaper rash.

The Children's Aid Society investigated and found no child protection concerns.

The court found the mother's allegations were unfounded and jumped to dubious conclusions.

The court ordered a temporary regime of up to 50% time-sharing for the father, based on his rotating employment schedule, to maximize the child's involvement with each parent.