Thomas Pratt

The paternal grandmother brought a motion to be added as a party to the continuing divorce action between the parents, where the father's access was the primary issue.

The grandmother had been supervising the father's access and argued she should be a party because her status as a supervisor was in dispute.

Both the mother and the father opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that being a supervisor is not a substantive right and that adding the grandmother would needlessly complicate the proceedings.

Costs of $1,000 were awarded to the mother.

On a motion to change a temporary custody and access order, the applicant sought permission to relocate the children from Hamilton to Wasaga Beach after securing better full-time employment.

Applying the two-step mobility framework from Gordon v Goertz and s. 29 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court found a material change in circumstances and concluded the move was in the children’s best interests.

The responding party relied largely on unsupported allegations already rejected in prior proceedings and offered no compelling evidence that the relocation would harm the children.

The motion was granted, the access exchange location was revised to a half-way point, and the existing order remained temporary.