M. Belansky

On competing family law motions concerning a child’s medical care and dietary management, the court found a material change in circumstances based on escalating parental conflict and ongoing medical uncertainty affecting effective decision-making.

The court held that the dietary term in prior Minutes of Settlement remained binding unless varied, and that unilateral non-compliance was impermissible despite disagreement about continued necessity.

Applying best-interests principles under the Divorce Act and Children’s Law Reform Act, the court ordered an interim framework requiring continued gluten- and dairy-free compliance, detailed dietary/symptom tracking, and coordinated physician-led referrals through the child’s family doctor.

The child was ordered to remain on a tertiary clinic wait list pending medical recommendations or further order.

Both the motion and cross-motion were granted in part, with all other relief dismissed and no costs awarded.

On a family law motion, the moving party sought to set aside temporary orders that had restricted him to supervised parenting time and had shifted decision-making authority and primary residence to the responding party.

The court held that the temporary safety concerns underlying those orders had materially changed, relying in particular on child protection communications indicating no ongoing involvement regarding the parties’ children and permitting unsupervised caregiving in the moving party’s household.

The court found the temporary orders did not establish a new status quo deserving deference where the original rationale had dissipated.

The motion was granted, the temporary orders were vacated, and the prior equal parenting regime was reinstated with a short transition period of interim unsupervised parenting time.

The applicant and respondent both brought motions for temporary relief within a Motion to Change.

The applicant sought to alter the status quo parenting time established by a Texas divorce decree, add a 'no harassment' clause, and compel disclosure of the respondent's employer.

The respondent sought to maintain the parenting schedule, vacate a temporary supervision order related to his admitted alcoholism, and obtain specific orders regarding extracurricular activities.

The court dismissed both motions, save for ordering the respondent to disclose his employer's identity.

The court emphasized that interim changes to status quo parenting arrangements should not be made absent evidence of harm or necessity, especially with a trial scheduled in five months.

The supervision order was maintained pending trial to allow for tested evidence on the respondent's progress with his alcoholism.