P. Novomestsky

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.