Michael John Freeze

The respondent brought a motion for summary judgment in a custody application concerning their child.

The applicant opposed the motion.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial based on affidavit evidence.

The respondent had been the child's primary caregiver for over four years, with strong support from his family and physician.

The applicant lacked a coherent care plan, had financial difficulties, demonstrated anger management issues, posed a flight risk, and had not maintained respectful communication with the respondent or the court.

The court granted the respondent's motion and awarded him sole custody.

Following a prior endorsement directing the parties to agree on a counsellor for their child, the parties failed to reach agreement and the applicant provided written submissions proposing several counsellors.

The respondent did not provide written submissions.

After reviewing the proposed counsellors’ qualifications and availability, the court determined that any of three identified professionals were suitable.

The court ordered a process requiring the respondent to select one counsellor within ten days, failing which the applicant could choose.

The court also made interim orders allocating responsibility for counselling costs depending on the availability of coverage under the applicant’s benefits plan.

The appellants appealed a decision applying the doctrine of res judicata based on prior CCAA proceedings.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the appellants were neither parties nor privies in interest to the prior proceedings.

The court noted that the appellants only participated as witnesses and that respondents' counsel had previously indicated that findings in the CCAA proceedings would not affect proceedings against other parties.