Louise M. Mimnagh

The court considered a motion by the respondent, Ms. Stephenson, to amend her answer to assert trust claims regarding the matrimonial home, more than four years after the application was commenced.

The court reviewed the procedural history, the parties' positions, and the applicable legal principles regarding amendments to pleadings, including the presumption of prejudice arising from inordinate and unexplained delay.

The court found that Ms. Stephenson failed to provide a reasonable explanation for her delay, that the amendment would cause prejudice to the applicant not compensable by costs or adjournment, and that the interests of justice required the matter to proceed to trial on the existing pleadings.

The motion to amend was dismissed.

The applicant father sought an order compelling the respondent mother and their 17-year-old son, Ryan, to participate in reunification counselling to re-establish his relationship with Ryan.

The respondent and the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL), representing Ryan, opposed the motion.

The court considered the child's best interests, giving significant weight to Ryan's clear and independent views against participating in the therapy, especially given his approaching age of majority.

The court found that forcing therapy would likely be counter-productive and dismissed the motion.

The moving party mother brought a motion for an interim order permitting her to relocate with the parties' six-year-old child to another city for employment reasons.

The responding party father opposed the move and sought a shared parenting arrangement.

The court found that it was premature to permit relocation on an interim basis given the conflicting evidence and the significant disruption it would cause to the child's status quo and the father's parenting time.

The court dismissed the relocation motion, adjourning the issue to trial, and ordered a shared-care parenting schedule on a four-day rotation.

The applicant brought a motion seeking orders to prohibit the respondent's mother and friend from participating in access exchanges and from discussing adult issues with the children.

The respondent brought a cross-motion to vary interim access, shift driving responsibility, and obtain disclosure of information regarding the children, including designation as an alternative emergency contact, and for interim child support.

The court dismissed the applicant's prohibitive requests, granted the respondent's disclosure requests by consent, and varied the interim access schedule to increase the respondent's weekend time and introduce shared driving responsibilities, citing a material change in circumstances due to the applicant's relocation.

A mutual order was also issued prohibiting derogatory comments and discussing court proceedings with the children.