Mathew Villeneuve

The applicant father brought a motion seeking to change the primary residence of the four-year-old child from the respondent mother to himself, and to determine the child's school attendance.

The motion heavily relied on an Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) report that was critical of the mother's lifestyle and stability.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, disputing the OCL report's findings and alleging bias.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, emphasizing the high threshold for disturbing a de facto parenting status quo on an interim basis.

The court found that the OCL report, largely based on hearsay and contentious information, carried little weight for the purposes of the interim motion, and that the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence that the child's best interests required an immediate change in primary residence.

This case involved cross-motions for an interim parenting order concerning a child born in September 2022.

The applicant father sought graduated parenting time, while the respondent mother opposed, alleging abuse and substance abuse, and requested a parenting assessment and supervised access.

The court dismissed the respondent's request for a s. 30 assessment due to insufficient evidentiary foundation and found her credibility questionable, particularly regarding her self-help tactics in denying the father access and her use of surreptitious video recordings.

The court granted the applicant father a graduated parenting schedule, emphasizing the child's right to a relationship with both parents, and imposed conditions on the father's substance use during parenting time.

This endorsement addresses cross-motions for disclosure in a family law proceeding.

The applicant sought extensive financial disclosure, interim spousal support (adjourned), to strike a valuation report, a non-dissipation order, and to bar the respondent from filing further motions.

The respondent also sought disclosure from the applicant.

The court emphasized the principle of proportionality in disclosure, dismissing most of the applicant's requests as baseless, redundant, or disproportionate.

The applicant's claims to strike a valuation report and for a non-dissipation order were also dismissed due to lack of credible evidence.

The respondent's requests for the applicant's financial and income-related disclosure were largely granted.