3 total
The court granted increased daytime access and ordered payment of specific Section 7 expenses.
The respondent father sought increased parenting time and a change to the children's exchange location, while the applicant mother opposed these changes and sought financial orders.
The court addressed allegations of sexual interference against the father, which were unverified by police and CAS, and noted the mother's non-compliance with a prior order regarding questioning the children.
The father's request for increased daytime access was granted, and the exchange location was changed for safety.
Other parenting requests were adjourned pending a full assessment.
On financial matters, the mother's claim for August 2019 child support was deferred due to incomplete disclosure.
The father was ordered to contribute to certain Section 7 expenses (camping, day camps, swimming lessons, strike day daycare) but not others (babysitting, Guides, hot lunch differential).
The court granted leave for an urgent motion to restrict parenting time due to safety concerns.
The applicant mother sought an urgent motion to reduce the respondent father's access to their children, specifically to eliminate overnight access, based on disclosures from their two young daughters (ages 4 and 6) regarding the father's alleged sexualized comments.
The father denied the allegations, noting a prior CAS investigation found them unverified.
The court determined the matter was urgent, affecting the children's safety, and granted leave for the motion to proceed despite the Chief Justice's Notice to the Profession regarding COVID-19.
The court also ordered the mother to forthwith deliver a recording of one child's statement to the father and made arrangements for cross-examinations to proceed virtually.
The court excluded a father's surreptitious recordings of his family due to their high prejudicial effect and low probative value.
This endorsement addresses disputed issues of admissibility of evidence in advance of a temporary motion concerning parenting time.
The court considered surreptitiously obtained recordings made by the father, as well as police occurrence reports and Children's Aid Society (CAS) file notes.
Applying the general exclusionary discretion for surreptitious evidence in family law, the court found that the father's recordings had low probative value and were outweighed by significant systemic and case-specific prejudice, leading to their exclusion.
The court also clarified the admissibility of business records under the Evidence Act, ruling that while the records themselves might be admissible, embedded hearsay from third parties not under a business duty to report, or opinions, were not.
Consequently, most of the father's tendered evidence was deemed inadmissible.
