Matthew Anthony Brian Hickey

The respondent mother brought a motion to vary the applicant's access to their seven-year-old child.

The respondent raised concerns that the applicant, who works in the sex trade, was not adhering to COVID-19 safety protocols with clients, thereby putting the child at risk.

The court found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of compliance with COVID-19 protocols, such as wearing masks and social distancing.

The court concluded that this constituted a material change in circumstances and temporarily suspended the applicant's physical access, replacing it with video access, until the applicant could provide an undertaking and a realistic proposal to comply with COVID-19 protocols.

The applicant sought a contempt order and immediate possession of a property ordered to be partitioned and sold, alleging the respondent interfered with the sale.

The respondent argued issues with service and hearsay.

The court found sufficient evidence of the respondent's wilful non-compliance but did not formally issue a contempt order.

Instead, it granted the applicant immediate possession of the property, giving the respondent 45 days to vacate, and ordered the respondent not to interfere with the sale or cause damage.

The court also set aside a previous costs order against the respondent but re-ordered costs in favour of the applicant for the current motion.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault and mischief.

The court accepted a joint submission and sentenced the accused to four months imprisonment on the assault charge (with credit for one and a half days of presentence custody), with the mischief charge resulting in a suspended sentence.

The accused was placed on a two-year probation with conditions including a no-contact order with the victim (with limited exceptions for family court proceedings and contact arrangements regarding their child), a 200-metre non-association order, mandatory counselling and rehabilitation programs, DNA order, and a ten-year firearms prohibition under section 110 of the Criminal Code.

Two summary conviction surcharges of $100 each were imposed.

The applicant mother brought a motion for the production of the respondent father's un-redacted Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) file pursuant to Rule 19(11) of the Family Law Rules.

The mother sought the records to assist in determining custody and access of their seven-year-old child, raising concerns about the father's mental health and his continuing eligibility for ODSP despite his doctor's notes stating he was stable.

The court found that the best interests of the child and related protection concerns took priority over the father's privacy rights.

The court ordered the production of the medical documentation from the ODSP file, but excluded the financial aspects as they were overly broad.

A custody and access trial concerning two children following a high-conflict separation.

The applicant alleged the respondent posed safety risks and sought supervised access, while the respondent alleged parental alienation and sought custody.

The court found the applicant had engaged in persistent conduct undermining the children’s relationship with the respondent, including numerous unsubstantiated allegations and interference with contact.

Applying the best interests test under the Divorce Act and the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court maintained the children’s primary residence with the applicant but implemented expanded access for the respondent and reunification counselling for one child.

The order was framed as temporary pending resolution of financial issues and a possible updated report from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.