Patricia P. 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.

Following a mid-trial settlement of a protracted custody and access dispute, the applicant and respondent each sought costs of $15,000 against the other, and the applicant also sought costs against the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL).

The court dismissed all claims for costs.

The court found that the applicant's unreasonable pursuit of primary residence for three years rebutted the presumption of costs in his favour, while the respondent acted unreasonably by proceeding to trial instead of settling based on her long-held position.

The court also declined to award costs against the OCL, finding no bad faith or patently unreasonable conduct that would justify such an exceptional order.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion prior to a Case Conference seeking temporary custody and access to the parties' young child, alleging the respondent mother had abducted the child.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion seeking temporary custody and supervised access, alleging the father had alcohol abuse issues and was abusive.

The court granted leave to hear the motion prior to a Case Conference due to the mother's denial of access.

The court declined to make a temporary custody order but granted the father temporary unsupervised access, finding insufficient evidence that the child would be unsafe in his care.

The applicant mother sought directions concerning the implementation of a prior order governing her access to the parties’ child.

The dispute arose after the child resisted access and the respondent father unilaterally enrolled the child in a different school, making access more difficult.

The court emphasized the need to comply with a prior order directing counselling and a mini‑assessment under s. 30 of the Children’s Law Reform Act by a child psychiatrist to determine the source of the child’s resistance and his preferences regarding residence and schooling.

The court ordered the resumption of the mother’s access and directed both parties to immediately arrange the assessment and cooperate in providing information regarding schooling options.

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.