Stephanie Ouellette

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking permission to relocate the parties' five-year-old child from London to Stayner, Ontario, due to financial hardship and eviction.

The respondent father objected to the move.

The court applied the provisions of the Children's Law Reform Act and the Plumley factors for interim mobility.

Finding that the child spent the vast majority of time with the applicant, the burden of proof shifted to the respondent to show the move was not in the child's best interests.

The court concluded the respondent failed to meet this burden, noting the applicant's compelling financial reasons and the benefits of family support in Stayner.

The motion was granted on a temporary basis, with the applicant responsible for transportation for the respondent's parenting time.

The applicants, the child's paternal grandmother and father, and the respondent mother brought a consent motion for a final parenting order.

The court declined to grant the order on the current record, noting deficiencies in the evidence, including the grandmother's failure to provide a proper police records check under the Children's Law Reform Act, missing affidavits, and conflicting evidence regarding Children's Aid Society involvement.

The court issued a temporary order requiring the parties to file additional materials before the consent order could be considered.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change seeking a temporary order to relocate the parties' child from London to Calgary.

The respondent father opposed the move and sought a 2-2-3 parenting schedule.

The court applied the relocation provisions of the Children's Law Reform Act and found that the mother, as the primary caregiver, had a reasonable plan for relocation that would provide her with family support and career advancement.

The court determined that the relocation was in the child's best interests and granted the temporary order, while establishing a schedule for the father's contact with the child.

This case involved a two-week trial concerning a motion to change parenting provisions and child support for two special needs children.

The applicant mother sought sole decision-making and increased child support, while the respondent father sought shared decision-making and expanded parenting time.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the father's conduct, which led to the withdrawal of the children's essential therapy team.

The final order granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, maintained the father's existing parenting time with minor adjustments, and increased child support retroactively based on the father's updated income.

The court imposed stringent communication controls on the father to prevent further interference with the children's service providers.

The mother applied for sole decision-making responsibility and child support, while the father sought joint decision-making.

The parties had a turbulent relationship with a history of conflict and criminal charges.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility, finding that the parties' inability to communicate effectively made joint decision-making inappropriate, though the mother was ordered to consult the father on major decisions.

The father was granted alternate weekend parenting time.

The court also imputed a part-time minimum wage income of $18,000 to the unemployed father and ordered him to pay $263 per month in child support, while rescinding his child support arrears.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking supervised parenting time for the applicant father and a police assistance order, alleging family violence and harassment.

The court found the father's conduct constituted family violence but determined that supervised parenting time was excessive at this stage.

The court reduced the father's parenting time, ordered strict conditions for access exchanges, granted a police assistance order to prevent overholding, and corrected procedural errors in previously issued ex parte restraining orders.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking primary residence of her five-year-old child, who was currently in the temporary custody of the applicant paternal grandmother pursuant to an ex parte order.

The court declined to change the child's primary residence on an interim basis, citing the principle of maintaining the status quo pending a full investigation by the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

However, the court found it in the child's best interests to increase the mother's parenting time to alternate weekends and a week-about schedule during the summer.

The grandmother was ordered to facilitate most of the transportation due to the mother's circumstances.

The applicant sought costs of $5,029.63 following a successful motion regarding child access.

The respondent argued for no costs or nominal costs due to his limited financial means and reliance on social assistance.

The court found the applicant was the successful party and that the respondent had acted unreasonably by refusing to acknowledge changed circumstances and failing to make any settlement offers.

Recognizing the respondent's impecuniosity, the court fixed costs at a reduced amount of $2,400, payable in monthly installments of $200 to be set off against the applicant's child support obligations.

The applicant mother, a member of the Canadian Armed Forces stationed in Nova Scotia, brought an urgent motion for extended parenting time with her two children, who resided primarily with the respondent father in Ontario.

The father opposed the children travelling to Nova Scotia, citing disruptions to their education and health risks associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly given the children's asthma.

The court granted the mother's request for a two-week extended access visit in Nova Scotia, finding that the travel did not pose an inordinate health risk and that restoring the children's relationship with their mother was in their best interests.

The applicants (paternal grandmother and father) brought an urgent motion for an interim parenting order for their two-year-old child.

The urgency arose because the mother had unilaterally taken the child to Prince Edward Island, which the court previously ordered her to return from.

The court considered the father's extensive criminal record, including assault convictions, and the mother's wrongful self-help actions, as well as questions regarding the mother's parenting abilities.

The court made an interim parenting order granting the paternal grandmother care and control for part of the week and the mother for the remainder, with the father having supervised daytime access.

The motions were adjourned to a case conference to address the mother's future housing arrangements.

The paternal grandmother and father brought an urgent motion for the return of a two-year-old child after the mother unilaterally relocated with the child from London, Ontario to Prince Edward Island.

The mother brought a cross-motion for interim custody and permission to reside in PEI.

The court applied the Plumley test for interim mobility and found no compelling circumstances to justify the move, noting the child's habitual residence was London and the move would undermine the child's relationship with the applicants.

The mother was ordered to return the child to London pending further interim orders.

The applicant sought urgent interim parenting time with his two-year-old child, alleging denial of access by the respondent mother.

The court, acknowledging the urgency due to COVID-19, granted the applicant progressive parenting time, including overnights after an initial period of day visits.

However, the applicant's broader claims for interim custody and equal parenting time were dismissed, with the court noting the child's de facto primary care remained with the respondent.

Access exchanges were ordered to be facilitated by the paternal grandmother.

The applicant mother sought interim unsupervised access to her two children, while the respondent father sought supervised access.

The court found urgency due to COVID-19 and heard the motions via teleconference.

Despite allegations of mental health issues and past conflict, the court was not persuaded that supervised access was necessary, considering the children's ages, the mother's prior involvement, and two positive supervised visits.

Unsupervised, staged access was granted to the mother, with a requirement to provide evidence of steps taken to address mental health issues.

The applicant brought a motion for access to his child.

The respondent failed to participate in two teleconference hearings and did not file any material.

The court found the respondent obstructed access and ordered interim in-person and video access for the applicant, emphasizing the child's best interests and warning the respondent about the consequences of non-compliance with court orders, including potential contempt proceedings.

The appellant mother brought a motion to stay a final custody order pending appeal.

The trial judge had changed the child's primary residence to the respondent father due to the child's poor school attendance while in the mother's care.

The Divisional Court reviewed the test for a stay pending appeal, noting conflicting jurisprudence on the 'serious issue' threshold, but ultimately dismissed the motion.

The court found that while the appeal raised a serious issue, the mother failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay, emphasizing that the child's best interests were served by continuing to attend school from the father's residence.

The moving parties, the aunt and uncle of a child apprehended at birth, sought to be added as parties to a child protection proceeding where the Society sought Crown wardship.

The Society opposed the motion, arguing that the mother could advance the kinship plan.

The court granted the motion, finding that adding the aunt and uncle was in the child's best interests, would not delay the proceedings, and was necessary to allow them to independently advance their kinship plan.

Maternal grandparents applied for court-ordered access to their grandchildren under the Children’s Law Reform Act after the parents terminated contact following family conflict and eviction proceedings.

The court reviewed the governing principles on grandparent access, emphasizing that the best interests of the child and parental decision-making authority are paramount where parents are attentive to their children’s needs.

Although the court accepted that a prior relationship existed and found aspects of the parents’ allegations exaggerated, the evidence also demonstrated significant and ongoing hostility between the adults and an incident involving secret contact that precipitated child protection proceedings.

The court concluded that the relationship between the grandparents and the children was ordinary rather than “special” and that ordering access would likely intensify conflict and place the children in the middle of adult disputes.

The application for access was dismissed, though the grandparents were permitted to send cards and gifts on special occasions.