Natasha Pappin

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for a temporary order returning the parties' 9-year-old son to a week-about shared parenting regime.

The respondent mother had unilaterally withheld the child following an incident that resulted in criminal charges and a no-contact order against the applicant.

The court found that returning to the established status quo of shared parenting was in the child's best interests, noting no evidence of parental alienation by the applicant.

The motion was granted, with exchanges ordered to take place at a Visitation and Exchange Centre.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion prior to a case conference seeking sole decision-making power, primary parenting responsibility, and supervised access for the respondent mother.

The father alleged that the mother's parents, who temporarily moved in with her, created an unsafe environment due to alcohol-fueled arguments and a recent homicide investigation at their property.

The court dismissed the motion, noting the lack of corroborating evidence from child protection agencies and finding that the conflicting affidavit evidence did not establish an emergency or that the requested orders were in the child's best interests.

The applicant brought a motion to adjourn a family law trial scheduled to proceed in four weeks due to her counsel's competing trial commitment.

The respondent opposed the adjournment, citing his age, health, and the stress of ongoing litigation, as well as the applicant's counsel's neglect in addressing the scheduling conflict earlier.

The court weighed the prejudice to both parties and the broader public interest, concluding that the potential prejudice to the applicant of proceeding without counsel outweighed the inconvenience to the respondent, which could be compensated in costs.

The trial was adjourned to the fall sittings, peremptory to the applicant, with submissions requested on whether the applicant's counsel should personally bear the costs.