Matthew 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.

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.