M. Walz

The applicant father and respondent mother brought competing motions regarding the mother's request to relocate their child to Sudbury.

The mother had moved to Sudbury for better economic opportunities and to live with her new partner.

The court considered the father's history of a severe drinking and driving incident, which raised concerns about his sobriety and the child's safety in his care.

Finding no such risks with the mother's plan, the court granted interim custody to the mother and permitted the child's relocation to Sudbury, with access to the father.

No costs were awarded as the court questioned the urgency of the mother's initial move.

Two motions to change were tried together concerning parenting arrangements for two children.

The father sought to vary a prior order requiring supervised access to allow unsupervised access, while the paternal grandparents sought unsupervised access after years of supervised visits.

The court found that the children had a longstanding, positive bond with the grandparents and that the mother’s decision to restrict contact to supervised access following a disputed incident was disproportionate and arbitrary.

Unsupervised access for the grandparents was ordered.

The father’s request for unsupervised access was denied due to ongoing instability, including criminal conduct, substance use history, and inconsistent parenting involvement.

The court also declined to order the children’s return from Windsor to Sault Ste.

Marie, finding they were well settled and that relocation remained in their best interests.

In a family law dispute concerning spousal support and equalization, the responding party filed affidavit materials referencing settlement negotiations, offers to settle, case conference briefs, and solicitor-client communications.

The moving party sought an order striking those portions of the record on the basis of settlement privilege, solicitor-client privilege, and the confidentiality provisions of the Family Law Rules.

The court reviewed the governing common law principles protecting settlement communications and the statutory confidentiality regime under Rules 17 and 18.

It held that settlement discussions, offers to settle, conference brief materials, and solicitor-client communications are presumptively privileged and cannot be included in the court record absent exceptional circumstances.

Most of the impugned passages and exhibits were therefore struck from the record.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking expanded interim access to the children, including additional overnight periods, a week‑about summer schedule, travel notification requirements for the mother, and specified telephone access.

The court found that the parties had conflicting factual accounts that could not be resolved on motion and that the matter was scheduled for trial within a few months.

The court declined to substantially alter the existing interim custody and access order.

Limited adjustments were made to establish specific summer access dates and structured telephone access to reduce conflict.

Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a final joint custody order, seeking shared custody of the parties' child on a week-about basis and a corresponding adjustment to child support.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the parties forming new blended families and the child's increased behavioural issues.

However, the court dismissed the father's claim for shared custody, finding that the parents' high conflict, inability to communicate, and differing parenting styles made shared or joint custody unworkable and contrary to the child's best interests.

The court varied the existing order to grant sole custody to the respondent mother, reduced the father's access to alternate weekends to minimize transitions, and ordered the father to pay $660.79 per month in child support.