Natasha Dawn Pappin

The respondent brought a motion seeking an order to relocate the child's residence to Kingston, Ontario, to accept a teaching contract.

The applicant consented to the move but disputed the adjusted access schedule.

The court granted the respondent's request to move the child on consent and established a temporary access schedule for the applicant, contingent on whether the applicant also relocated to Kingston.

The court declined to address additional motions filed by both parties, including a request to vary interim child support, deeming them speculative and premature given the impending trial.

The applicant, a grandmother, sought a temporary order for access to her 5-year-old granddaughter.

The parents and other family members opposed the motion, citing concerns about the applicant's disrespect for parental decisions, promotion of religious views, and attempts to facilitate contact with an estranged aunt.

The court, applying the principles from *Chapman v. Chapman*, found that the parents were attentive, capable, and loving, and had not shown an inability to act in the child's best interests.

The court determined that the parents' decision to limit access was not arbitrary or unreasonable, despite the potential impact on the grandmother-granddaughter relationship.

The motion for temporary access was dismissed.

This is a costs endorsement following the applicant's unsuccessful motion to adjourn a trial.

The respondent sought costs thrown away due to the adjournment and costs for responding to the motion.

The court found the respondent's refusal to consent to the adjournment reasonable, citing the applicant's disclosure failures, missed deadlines, and unexplained delays.

The court awarded the respondent costs thrown away and substantial indemnity costs for the motion, payable by the applicant.

The court declined to order costs personally against the applicant's counsel, despite her neglect, emphasizing the high threshold for such orders.

Family and Children's Services of Renfrew County brought an emergency motion seeking to place access between the respondent father and the three subject children in the Society's discretion.

The motion arose following a conflict between two of the children regarding an allegation of sexual touching made by one child against the father.

The father's inability to move past the allegation and his characterization of the child as a liar created significant emotional distress for all three children, with two threatening self-harm.

The court granted the motion in part, restricting the father's access to the middle child while maintaining access with the two other children, and ordered the father not to discuss the proceedings with any of his children.

The applicant brought a motion to change custody and access orders four days after the court determined that the child was habitually resident in Quebec.

The applicant sought to invoke the exception to habitual residence under section 22(1)(b) of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the determination of habitual residence was res judicata and that the applicant had not demonstrated that the basis for the jurisdiction decision had changed.

The child had lived in Quebec for three years, attended school there, and had established substantial connections to that province.

The court directed future custody and access matters to be litigated in Quebec.

The court considered written submissions on costs following a motion and cross-motion concerning custody, access, child support, property, and a restraining order.

While success on custody and access timesharing was divided, the Respondent was successful on final decision-making authority, interim child support, and the restraining order.

Neither party filed formal offers to settle.

Applying Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules and considering the relevant factors, the court found the Respondent had greater success and awarded her $1,500 in costs, all-inclusive, to be paid by the Applicant within 30 days.

This motion and cross-motion addressed interim parenting arrangements, child support, and property issues following the parties' separation.

The Applicant father sought joint shared custody or primary residence, while the Respondent mother sought sole custody, primary residence, child support, section 7 expenses, and a restraining order.

The court denied joint shared custody, maintaining primary residence with the mother, but granted the father increased access.

Child support was ordered for two children based on the father's income, declining to reduce it due to an unenforced prior support obligation from another biological parent.

Section 7 expenses and health coverage were ordered to be shared/maintained.

A restraining order against the father attending the former matrimonial home without consent was granted.

Property issues were deferred for future resolution.

The accused was charged with possession of Oxycodone following a vehicle stop.

The sole issue was whether the accused's Charter rights under sections 8, 9, and 10(b) were violated and whether evidence should be excluded.

A detective stopped the vehicle based on surveillance of a suspected drug house.

The court found the detention was arbitrary and unlawful, lacking both statutory and common law authority.

The officer had no articulable cause to detain the accused.

The demand for identification constituted an unreasonable search.

The court excluded all evidence and acquitted the accused.