Paull J.

The applicant father sought to prohibit the respondent mother from relocating with their two young children from Woodstock to Port Stanley, or alternatively sought custody.

The respondent mother sought permission to relocate and sought sole custody with access to the father.

The court considered the principles established in Plumley v. Plumley and Gordon v. Goertz regarding temporary relocation of children.

The court found that the mother had compelling reasons for the move, including a significant reduction in her commute to work and reduced childcare needs.

The court determined that the proposed relocation would not materially interfere with the father's access arrangements as outlined in the parties' separation agreement, and that the benefits to the children outweighed any risks.

The court granted the mother permission to relocate on an interim basis while maintaining the father's parenting time.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the father sought to return to a joint custody and shared residential arrangement that had been in place since November 2017 pursuant to a separation agreement.

The mother suspended this arrangement in May 2020, citing concerns about the father's alcohol addiction, relationship instability with his partner, and the impact on the children.

The court found urgency was established and determined that a graduated return to the shared custody arrangement was in the children's best interests, with conditions requiring the father to continue working with addiction services and counselling, and prohibiting excessive alcohol consumption while caregiving or in the presence of the children.

Both parents brought urgent motions during the COVID-19 pandemic seeking sole custody of their two children.

The respondent father withheld the children from the applicant mother following his access time on May 4, 2020, contrary to an interim order dated December 23, 2019.

The father alleged various concerns including the mother's alleged drug use, housing instability, poor school attendance, and the presence of a potentially dangerous individual in the mother's sister's home.

The court found that urgency was established based on the father's breach of the court order and the need for a structured arrangement to prevent further upheaval.

However, the court determined that the father failed to establish sufficient evidence of immediate risk to the children's safety to justify the change in custody.

The court ordered the children returned to the mother's primary care with an expanded and structured access schedule for the father.

A mother sought a motion for the return of her infant son to her care or to the paternal grandparents' care following the Children's Aid Society's temporary suspension of all supervised access and parenting support programs due to COVID-19.

The court dismissed the motion seeking return to parental care and the alternative claim for residence with paternal grandparents, finding insufficient evidence and lack of cooperation with court directions.

The court upheld the Society's temporary suspension of face-to-face access as justified by public health concerns, while acknowledging the importance of physical contact between mother and child under normal circumstances.

Both parents brought urgent motions seeking temporary custody of their young daughter.

The mother sought sole or shared custody with an alcohol prohibition on the father.

The father sought sole custody with limited access for the mother and restrictions on her new partner and father.

The court found that the father had not established urgency based on his allegations regarding the mother's stability and her new partner's safety concerns.

The court determined that the father's evidence was insufficient, inconsistent, and contradicted by his own text messages, which revealed his true motivations were financial and related to anger over the mother's new relationship.

The court found that the father had engaged in self-help by unilaterally terminating a previously agreed-upon shared parenting arrangement in March 2020 without justification.

The court awarded interim sole custody to the mother with regular and liberal access to the father, finding that the father's conduct demonstrated he would not facilitate the mother's relationship with the child if given custody.

The applicant (mother) and respondent (father) brought competing urgent motions regarding custody and access to their two young children during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The respondent sought interim custody and primary residence, while the applicant sought to maintain the interim custody order granted in her favour on January 6, 2020.

The court found that while the respondent had been the primary caregiver prior to December 23, 2019, his physically aggressive and threatening behaviour on that date—including threatening to cut the applicant's car tires with a kitchen knife—provided compelling grounds to maintain the children in the applicant's temporary care.

The court granted interim sole custody to the applicant with liberal and unsupervised access to the respondent, subject to specific terms governing parental conduct, alcohol consumption, and communication.

The court rejected the respondent's argument that COVID-19 concerns created urgency, finding that both parents had demonstrated appropriate safety precautions.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion during the COVID-19 pandemic seeking return of her child to her care or alternatively to her care while residing with the paternal grandparents, following suspension of the Children's Aid Society's supervised access programs.

The child had been in Society care since September 2019 pursuant to an interim order made in November 2019.

The court found that while the mother's affidavit provided insufficient evidence, prima facie urgency was established by the complete suspension of face-to-face access with a very young child.

The court dismissed the motion for return to joint parental care but directed the mother to provide detailed evidence of an alternative plan, including specific COVID-19 safety measures, by April 30, 2020, with the Society to respond by May 15, 2020.

A seven-day trial concerning access and child support disputes between separated parents of two children.

The applicant sought structured access on alternate weekends and weekday evenings, along with family counselling.

The respondent opposed access except at the children's discretion, citing the applicant's insensitive and rigid behaviour regarding his new partner.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer was appointed to represent the children's interests.

The court found both parents contributed to the estrangement through inappropriate conduct, though the applicant's rigid approach and failure to apologize as planned were particularly damaging.

The court also addressed retroactive child support and section 7 expense contributions.