3 total
Court reinstated father's court-ordered parenting time, ruling COVID-19 does not justify unilateral access suspension.
The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking the reinstatement of his access to the parties' five-year-old child, as stipulated in a final order, which the respondent mother had unilaterally suspended due to concerns related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The respondent argued that the final order was no longer effective due to a de facto parenting arrangement and proposed limited, supervised access.
The court affirmed that existing court orders must be obeyed and that the COVID-19 pandemic does not automatically suspend in-person parenting time or permit unilateral changes to court-ordered access.
The court declared the final order to be in full force and effect, dismissed the respondent's proposed limited access, and denied the applicant's request for an interim police assistance order, while directing the applicant to issue a formal application.
The court granted the applicant interim unsupervised, staged access despite allegations of mental instability.
The applicant mother sought interim unsupervised access to her two children, while the respondent father sought supervised access.
The court found urgency due to COVID-19 and heard the motions via teleconference.
Despite allegations of mental health issues and past conflict, the court was not persuaded that supervised access was necessary, considering the children's ages, the mother's prior involvement, and two positive supervised visits.
Unsupervised, staged access was granted to the mother, with a requirement to provide evidence of steps taken to address mental health issues.
A father's motion for unsupervised access was dismissed and temporary supervised access was ordered due to safety concerns.
The applicant, Mr. B., brought a motion for access to his three children, initially seeking equal parenting time and joint custody, but at the motion, pursued only access.
The court reviewed the tumultuous history of the parties' relationship, marked by mutual aggression, domestic violence, and criminal charges against Mr. B. for assault and mischief.
Concerns were raised about the children's exposure to violence and their vulnerable state, including one child undergoing counselling and two subpoenaed to testify in Mr. B.'s upcoming criminal trial.
Despite Mr. B. completing a "Changing Ways" program and having previously arranged supervised access, the court denied his request for unsupervised weekend access, finding it inconsistent with the children's best interests.
A temporary order for supervised access at the Merrymount Children’s Centre was granted, with parties required to complete intake procedures.
