Ronald M. Laliberté

In a child protection proceeding, the child protection agency brought a motion to terminate the respondent mother's supervised access to a young child pending trial.

The court considered whether there had been a material change in circumstances sufficient to vary a temporary access order under the Child and Family Services Act.

Evidence included psychological assessments, reports of problematic behaviour during supervised visits, and a lengthy period without contact between the mother and child.

The court found that the mother had engaged in conduct during access visits that posed emotional and developmental risks to the child and demonstrated an inability to comply with the conditions of supervised access.

Concluding that continued access would not be in the child’s best interests pending trial, the court suspended the mother’s access.

The applicant brought a motion seeking a final order fixing ongoing child support and section 7 expenses and determining arrears pursuant to a prior order governing annual recalculation of support.

The respondent agreed with certain expense amounts but argued his income had changed and effectively sought to alter the mechanism used to calculate support.

The court held that, absent a proper motion to vary and proof of a material change in circumstances, the court would not vary the existing support order.

The respondent remained bound by the terms of the earlier order.

Child support and proportional section 7 expense payments were fixed based on the respondent’s 2013 income.

The moving party brought a motion to change a prior family law order regarding child support.

She argued that the adult child’s return to studies and the parenting time arrangements for the other child constituted a material change in circumstances justifying increased support.

The court held that the adult child was no longer entitled to support because he was not enrolled in full‑time studies and had reached the age of majority.

Regarding the other child, the court found the evidence supported shared parenting rather than the alleged reduced time with the responding party, and the moving party failed to prove a material change in circumstances.

The motion to vary the support order was therefore unsuccessful.

Costs decision following a family law motion and cross-motion concerning interim custody and access arrangements for the parties’ children.

The court considered the presumption of costs under Family Law Rule 24(1) and the relative success of the parties.

Although both parties advanced positions that were ultimately close to the interim arrangement ordered, the court found the moving party had the true measure of success because the order reflected the recommendations of the custody and access assessor.

Considering that the responding party acted reasonably, made an offer to settle, and succeeded on some points, the court moderated the award.

Costs of $1,500 all-inclusive were ordered payable to the moving party.

On an interim parenting motion involving a young child, the court was asked to determine temporary custody and access in the context of highly conflicting allegations including abuse, parental alienation, and interference with access.

Police and child protection investigations had occurred, but the evidentiary record remained limited and untested.

Applying the best interests of the child analysis, the court emphasized stability, the importance of maintaining the status quo on interim motions, and the need to minimize parental conflict while preserving meaningful contact with both parents.

Temporary custody was granted to the mother with structured access to the father and restrictions relating to the paternal grandfather.

The court also ordered the involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer to assist in determining final custody and access issues.