The respondent mother brought an urgent motion seeking to have the applicant father's parenting time supervised after he failed multiple drug tests for cocaine.
The father denied drug use, claiming the positive tests resulted from passive exposure, and relied on letters from his treating addictions physician to support this theory.
The court exercised its gatekeeper function and rejected the physician's opinion on passive ingestion, finding he was a participant expert without toxicological expertise.
Finding strong prima facie evidence of the father's renewed cocaine use and inadequate care, the court ordered that his parenting time be supervised and directed a section 30 parenting assessment.
