L.S. Parent

The respondent father brought a motion to vary a temporary consent order to expand his access to his two-year-old child and remove the condition of supervision.

The applicant mother opposed the motion, relying on an Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) report recommending that access remain supervised.

The court considered the OCL report and supervised access notes, finding that while there was a material change in circumstances due to the father's consistent access, transitioning to unsupervised access was not in the child's best interests at this time due to ongoing concerns about the father's behaviour during visits.

The motion was dismissed.

Following a motion for unsupervised and increased access where the applicant father was largely successful, he sought costs of $15,000.

The respondent mother opposed, citing divided success and inability to pay.

The court found the applicant was the more successful party but reduced the requested amount due to proportionality, unreasonable time docketed, and the respondent's financial circumstances.

The respondent was ordered to pay $7,500 in costs for the motion, with no costs awarded for the mandatory case conference.

The applicant mother sought sole custody and primary residence of the parties' three children.

The respondent father failed to attend the trial despite being notified.

The court considered the mother's evidence, which detailed a history of domestic conflict, her relocation to a home near her Indigenous community, and the father's harassing behaviour during access exchanges.

The court declined to follow the Office of the Children's Lawyer's recommendation for joint custody, finding the parties could not communicate effectively.

The mother was granted sole custody and primary residence, with specified access for the father, and the father was ordered to pay child support.

The Society sought an order of no access for the purpose of adoption regarding a 12-year-old child who had been made a Crown ward.

The mother sought continued access.

The court applied the test under s. 59(2.1) of the Child and Family Services Act, which requires that the relationship be meaningful and beneficial to the child and not impair future opportunities for adoption.

The court found that while the relationship was meaningful, it was not beneficial due to the mother's historical inability to respect court orders regarding access, her lack of insight, and her tendency to encourage the child to break rules, which destabilized the child.

The mother's claim for access was dismissed.