M. Coderre

The respondent brought a motion to stay three interlocutory orders pending leave to appeal and to consolidate the notices of motion for leave to appeal.

The court found that the order for the payment of money was automatically stayed under Rule 63.01.

However, the court dismissed the motion to stay the other two procedural orders, finding the respondent failed to establish a serious issue, irreparable harm, or balance of convenience.

The motion to consolidate was also dismissed as it would cause confusion.

Costs of $3,500 were awarded to the applicant.

The parties were subject to a consent interim order granting the respondent father access to the children three days a week.

The father sought to vary the order to include holiday access and sleepovers, while the applicant mother argued the status quo should be maintained until the Office of the Children's Lawyer completed its report.

The court found the status quo had already changed since the father moved out and the mother had previously consented to sleepovers.

The court ordered expanded interim access for the father, including holiday time and sleepovers, subject to strict conditions to manage the child's pet allergies.