Kristie Smith

The respondent father brought a motion for contempt against the applicant mother for withholding access to their two teenage daughters.

The mother had withheld access following allegations of physical abuse by the father, which were investigated by CAS and OPP.

The court previously ordered access to resume in Ottawa and for the family to engage in reunification counselling.

The father, now unemployed, requested that access resume in Bracebridge as per the final order, citing financial inability to travel to Ottawa.

The court declined to order the children to travel to Bracebridge, finding it not in their best interests at this early stage of reunification counselling.

The contempt motion was adjourned to be dealt with at the Motion to Change.

The moving party father brought a motion for contempt against the responding party mother for withholding access to their two children since June 2020.

The mother had withheld access following allegations of physical abuse made by one of the children, which led to child protection and police investigations that concluded without charges.

The children, aged 14 and 12, expressed a strong reluctance to travel 10 hours for access visits at the father's residence.

The court deferred the contempt motion for 90 days and ordered immediate reunification counselling.

The court also ordered interim access to take place in the children's home city for 10 hours every other weekend.

The applicant mother brought an urgent interim mobility motion seeking to relocate with the parties' two young children from Ottawa to St. John's, Newfoundland.

The mother, a refugee claimant, sought the move to pursue an employment opportunity that would qualify her for a provincial immigration nominee program.

The respondent father opposed the move but did not propose a plan for the children to remain with him.

The court applied the best interests of the child test and the principles for interim mobility, finding that the mother had been the primary caregiver and had a concrete plan, whereas the father had exercised minimal access and presented no alternative plan.

The court granted the temporary relocation and ordered the father to pay child support.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking the return of his two children from Nova Scotia to Ontario and joint custody.

The respondent mother had unilaterally moved with the children to Nova Scotia following a physical separation.

The court determined that the children's habitual residence was in Nova Scotia, where they were born, had extended family, and had previously received support services.

The court declined to exercise jurisdiction, finding that the Nova Scotia court, which had already granted an interim ex parte order, was the appropriate forum.

The Applicant's request for an urgent motion regarding access to his 11-month-old daughter was denied due to the Respondent's offer of twice-weekly access visits.

The Respondent sought costs for the urgent motion, to which she was presumptively entitled.

The Applicant resisted, arguing he did not request an urgent motion and that the Respondent's access offers were conditional.

The court found the Applicant clearly requested an urgent motion and that the Respondent's offer was unconditional.

The court assessed costs at $900 for the Respondent, inclusive of HST and disbursements, rejecting the principle of full recovery in family law and emphasizing proportionality.

The applicant sought the return of a child, access, and related relief after the respondent relocated without notice and ceased access.

The court adjourned the relocation issue but granted interim interim access to the applicant, noting the respondent's failure to file materials or attend court despite multiple adjournments and warnings.

The respondent was ordered to provide information about the child's school and her municipality of residence, as well as medical records supporting her non-attendance.