Martin Vamos

The moving party father brought a motion to adjourn an upcoming family law trial and requested further financial disclosure from the responding party mother.

The mother and the Office of the Children's Lawyer opposed the adjournment, arguing it was an abuse of process and that resolving the parenting and financial issues promptly was in the child's best interests.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding no justification for the delay and noting he had ample time to prepare and seek employment.

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

The applicant mother brought a summary judgment motion seeking sole custody, child support, and access at her discretion.

The respondent father, who was incarcerated, agreed to primary residence with the mother but sought joint custody upon his release.

The parties settled all issues except the custody designation.

The court applied the Hryniak test for summary judgment and the Kaplanis principles for joint custody.

Finding a history of high conflict, poor communication, and the father's frequent incarceration, the court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and granted the mother sole custody.

The father applied for sole custody of his four-year-old daughter, who had been living with her maternal grandmother for almost four years.

The mother, who had significant mental health and substance abuse issues, supported the grandmother's claim for custody.

The court found that the grandmother's home environment was unstable and that she lacked insight into the mother's and her own deficiencies, including failing to protect the child from the mother's violent partner and failing to address the child's chronic head lice.

The court determined that the father offered a stable, loving, and comprehensive plan for the child's care.

Sole custody was granted to the father, with specified access to the mother and maternal grandparents.

On an interim family law motion, the responding parent sought immediate implementation of recommendations from a s. 112 Office of the Children’s Lawyer report shortly before a scheduled custody trial.

The court reviewed the governing principles regarding reliance on untested assessment reports at the motion stage and the strong presumption in favour of maintaining the status quo pending trial.

However, evidence in the report and the parties’ materials revealed urgent concerns regarding the children’s safety, including repeated incidents of the other parent leaving the children unattended overnight and misleading authorities.

The court concluded that the circumstances justified limited interim intervention in the children’s best interests.

A temporary order significantly increased the moving parent’s parenting time, granted decision‑making authority over education and health issues, and suspended child support pending trial.