Patricia Novomestsky

The respondent mother brought a motion to strike the applicant father's pleadings for failure to disclose, and sought orders restricting his access and communication.

The applicant father brought a cross-motion seeking unsupervised and expanded access to their 15-month-old child.

The court dismissed the motion to strike as disclosure was largely provided.

The court ordered ongoing drug testing for the father, moved access exchanges to a neutral location with strict non-contact rules, and restricted communication between the parties to a journal.

The court granted the father expanded access on a graduated schedule, but ordered that his overnight access remain supervised by paternal family members due to concerns regarding past drug use.

The parties separated after a 22-year marriage.

They have a 28-year-old cognitively impaired daughter who remained living with the respondent father.

The father engaged in a severe campaign of parental alienation, completely severing the daughter's relationship with the applicant mother.

The mother sought custody and access, as well as spousal support.

The court confirmed its jurisdiction under the Divorce Act to make custody orders for adult disabled children.

Despite the father's alienating conduct, the court ordered that the daughter's primary residence remain with the father to respect her expressed wishes, but mandated regular access for the mother.

The court also imputed income to the father, finding him intentionally underemployed, and ordered him to pay $1,500 per month in retroactive and ongoing spousal support.