Maryam Manteghi

In supplementary reasons following a motion, the court determined the temporary supervised parenting schedule for the respondent mother of a six-month-old child.

The court rejected the applicant father's proposal to have his sister supervise due to high conflict, and rejected the mother's request for overnight parenting time.

The court ordered a specific schedule for virtual and in-person parenting time, with in-person visits to be supervised by the mother's friend or a paid professional, requiring the father to contribute up to $150 per week for the professional supervisor.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking temporary orders that the parties' six-month-old child reside with him, that the respondent mother's parenting time be supervised, and that the mother undergo a psychiatric assessment.

The father raised serious concerns regarding the mother's mental health, including alleged threats of self-harm and erratic behaviour.

The mother disputed the allegations and opposed supervised parenting.

Applying the best interests of the child test under the recently amended Divorce Act, the court granted the motion, finding that supervised parenting was necessary to ensure the child's safety until the mother's mental health challenges could be properly assessed.

The appellant husband appealed a trial judgment ordering him to pay spousal support of $1,500 per month for a two-year period following a short arranged marriage.

He argued the trial judge erred by considering impermissible evidence regarding the respondent's health and by failing to properly apply the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle or misapprehension of evidence, noting the trial judge properly based entitlement on the immigration sponsorship agreement and adequately explained his departure from the Guidelines.