Kristine Jackson

The Children's Aid Society brought motions to place the child in the temporary care and custody of the paternal grandparents, with specified access for the father and supervised access for the mother.

The mother brought a cross-motion for expanded unsupervised access.

The court granted the Society's motions, placing the child with the grandparents on consent.

The court ordered the father to have a minimum of eight hours of access per week, with the Society having discretion over supervision.

The mother was granted a minimum of two hours of supervised access per week due to concerns about her mental health and behavior, and the lack of an approved supervisor, with a view to expanding access if a suitable supervisor is found.

The applicant mother and respondent father both brought motions for interim primary care of their three children and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The parties had been living separate and apart under the same roof for over a year, with significant domestic conflict adversely affecting the children.

The father sought to introduce surreptitious video recordings of the mother; the court admitted three where the mother was aware of the recording but gave them little weight, and excluded a fourth taken without her knowledge.

The court granted the mother interim primary care, finding she had been the primary caregiver and it was in the children's best interests to maintain the status quo.

The court also granted the mother exclusive possession of the matrimonial home to protect the children from further exposure to conflict, with the implementation date adjourned to allow the father to find alternate accommodations.

The applicant father brought a motion for interim primary residence of the parties' two young children, or alternatively shared parenting or specified access.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion for interim sole custody and supervised access for the father.

Both parties made serious allegations against each other regarding substance abuse, violence, and parenting ability.

The court found that the children should maintain their primary residence with the mother, who had been their primary caregiver, while granting the father regular, unsupervised access.

The court declined to order interim sole custody or supervised access, finding that the parties' recent escalation of conflict likely exaggerated their respective concerns.

The applicant mother moved with the two children from London to Brampton without providing the 60 days' written notice required by the final order.

The respondent father brought an emergency motion for the return of the children, and the mother brought a cross-motion to remain in Brampton.

The court applied the Plumley factors for interim mobility, finding a genuine issue for trial and no compelling circumstances to justify an interim move.

The court ordered the children returned to London pending trial, noting the mother could not benefit from creating a new status quo without proper notice.

The father brought a motion seeking the immediate return of the parties’ child to Ontario and temporary custody after the mother relocated to British Columbia.

An earlier ex parte interim‑interim order had required the mother to return the child to Ontario based on an interpretation of a separation agreement restricting travel.

The court found that the motion judge had misread the relevant provision of the separation agreement, which actually restricted the father’s travel rights and did not prohibit the mother from relocating.

Considering the new evidence and the mistaken interpretation underlying the earlier order, the court set aside the ex parte interim‑interim order.

The child remained on an extended access visit with the father while the mother continued as the custodial parent under the separation agreement pending further court orders.