On a temporary family law motion, the court refused the father's request for equal time and granted the mother temporary sole custody and primary residence of the child.
Applying the best interests analysis under the Children's Law Reform Act, the court found credible evidence of domestic violence, controlling behaviour, and longstanding alcohol abuse by the father, together with concerns about his ability to prioritize the child's emotional needs.
The court held that there is no presumption favouring maintenance of the status quo on interim custody motions, although existing arrangements remain a relevant factor requiring careful scrutiny before variation.
The father's access continued on the existing schedule, but only subject to strict conditions including abstinence from alcohol, a prohibition on driving the child, and preconditions for any future motion to expand access.
Disclosure was ordered only in targeted areas relevant to income, disability, and mental health.
