Citation: Bryson v. Alridge, 2026 ONSC 4510
Court File No. FC-20-00000091
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
5 FAMILY COURT
B E T W E E N:
MAXIME BRYSON
10
Applicant
- and - LISA ALDRIDGE
Respondent
15
R U L I N G
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE P. E. ROGER on TUESDAY, JULY 14, 2026 at OTTAWA, Ontario
20
25
APPEARANCES:
C. Deeble Counsel for the Applicant
B. Johnston Counsel for the Respondent
30
TUESDAY, JULY 14, 2026
R U L I N G
5
The Applicant father brings this motion over the
parenting arrangement for the parties’ child who
10 is now 12 years old.
The parties were in a relationship from 2012 to 2019. The Applicant father has two older daughters from another relation who are now 18
15 and 20 years old. During the parties’
relationship, the Applicant father argues that he was a stay-at-home parent, looking after his two daughters and the parties’ child. Whether he was a stay-at-home parent, the extent of the father’s
20 involvement in the parenting of the parties’
child during their relationship, and why he was a stay-at-home parent is in dispute. What happened shortly after separation about the parenting arrangements with the child is also in dispute,
25 but it seems that for a brief period the parties
attempted a shared parenting regime. However, it appears or is argued that the child experienced difficulties with the parenting time with the father and the Respondent mother discontinued the
30 child’s parenting time with the father in December 2019. Since then, the father has had very little parenting time with the child. The
evidence indicates that the child displayed increasing distress during her parenting time with the father. In 2021, Dr. Harrison suggested a complicated reunification process which has not
5 yet occurred. Why it has not occurred is in
dispute. Dr. Harrison still sees the child in a therapeutic relationship.
This case is concerning. However, on such a
10 motion, in these circumstances, the Court does not have the evidence required to decide what is in the child’s best interests. There has been a prolonged absence of parenting time with the father, that is undisputed. However, I have no
15 evidence of the child’s current condition and
current difficulties with parenting time with her father.
Courts are reluctant to order significant
20 parenting change on an interim motion, even more so on the eve of an approaching trial. The trial is scheduled for January 2027. I have no compelling evidence that an immediate change to the parenting schedule is required in the child’s
25 best interests. The father’s evidence relates to
the past and is not child focused. It contains no evidence of why what he suggests might be in the child’s best interests given the complicated circumstances of this case. This is not a case
30 where the Court can assume, on an interim motion, that maximum exposure to both parents is in the child’s best interests. As well, the father’s
requested relief is a rather moving target, and I have no evidence that the 2021 recommendations of Dr. Harrison are still applicable and no evidence whether proceeding today with her 2021
5 recommendations are in the child’s best
interests.
This is a complicated case and a trial will be required to properly assess what is in the
10 child’s best interests. It would be inappropriate to interfere with the status quo on an interim motion given the evidence presented which reveals no immediate change requiring the relief requested. Rather, what is required is more
15 evidence and the child to have legal
representation, if possible. On the latter points, the parties do not disagree that an OCL order should be made and that a request should be directed to Dr. Harrison to inquire whether she
20 could update her reports provided she agrees that
this will not interfere with her therapeutic relationship with the child.
Consequently, the following is ordered:
25
The Applicant’s motion is dismissed.
The Applicant’s motion scheduled for July 28, 2026 is vacated as the Respondent’s lawyer is not
30 available at that time. A date when both parties are available is to be scheduled, if that is necessary.
- I will not strike paragraph 65 of the Applicant’s factum, not because what is contained therein is appropriate, but because it is not
5 necessary for me to do so.
- An order will issue for the OCL to appoint representation for the child. In the view of the Court, a lawyer would be preferable but whether
10 it is a lawyer or a social worker will be decided by the OCL should they accept this matter. On this point, this is a complicated matter involving a complicated presentation by the child where it would be important for the Court to
15 ascertain the child’s views and preferences
before the January 2027 trial such that the OCL’s
involvement would be both important and urgent.
- Dr. Sharon Harrison shall immediately be asked
20 by the Respondent mother whether her ongoing therapeutic relationship with the child will allow her to update her prior reports to address what is in the child’s best interests, including the child’s views and preferences about renewed
25 parenting time with her father, and, depending
whether and how the child’s views and preferences may, in her best interests, allow parenting time with her father.
30 ...INTERIM SUBMISSIONS NOT TRANSCRIBED
Prior to dealing with the issue of costs, I will add to my order a paragraph to account for the
possibility of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer and Dr. Harrison not providing the information outlined above.
5 6) If the Office of the Children's Lawyer does not become involved and if Dr. Harrison cannot or will not provide the information requested above, then:
10 a) The parties shall jointly retain a qualified professional to prepare a Voice of the Child (VOC) report regarding the views and preferences of the child.
15 b) Within 10 days of today, the Applicant shall provide the Respondent with the names of three qualified professionals located in the area of Ottawa who are available and prepared to conduct the VOC report. The
20 Respondent shall select one professional from
this list within seven days of receiving the three names except that if the Respondent finds the list unsuitable, she shall provide three alternative names, and in that event
25 the Applicant shall select one of those
within seven days of receiving these names.
c) The cost associated with the VOC report shall be shared between the parties as
30 follows: 30 percent payable by the Applicant and 70 percent payable by the Respondent, which proportion is on a without prejudice
basis to any different proportion decided by the trial judge.
d) If the parties experience difficulty with
5 the above, they may return urgently before me at an urgent case conference for me to decide the outstanding issue.
- The Applicant shall pay to the Respondent for
10 the costs of this motion within the next 30 days, the all-inclusive amount of $13,627.
The Respondent was the successful party on this motion and is presumptively entitled to her
15 costs. Considering the circumstances and the
submissions, I see no reason why the Respondent should not be entitled to her costs of this motion.
20 Regarding the scale of costs, I cannot appreciate whether the alleged conduct of the Applicant constitutes bad faith. However, I do agree that the relief sought in his motion, in his factum, in the draft order, and during the submissions of
25 his lawyer, varied, seeking varied relief which
did not simplify this matter.
More importantly, the Respondent's offer of May 13, 2026, would have avoided this motion and my
30 order is as favourable as the offer, which triggers the costs consequences of Rule 18(14).
The endorsement of Justice Shelston of April 4, 2025, does not assist the Applicant on the issue of the costs of this motion as it would be speculative to apply that endorsement to the
5 circumstances of this motion. As well, the
Applicant's offer of May 25, 2026, does not assist the Applicant because the order made is not as favourable.
10 The amount of costs outlined in the Respondent's Bill of Costs are reasonable and I see no reason not to allow costs on a partial indemnity basis to the date of the offer and on a full indemnity basis thereafter. The financial circumstances of
15 the applicant are in dispute and, in any event,
do not, in these circumstances, warrant that I make a different order for costs. Indeed, costs play an important part in ensuring the parties’ reasonable conduct during litigation and this
20 case warrants such an order.
25 **********
30