2 total
The court dismissed a parent's motion to change a restraining order to allow access, finding no material change and citing ongoing risks.
A motion to change a final custody and restraining order made in 2005.
The respondent, who had been convicted of sexual assault and served a sentence, sought to remove a restraining order prohibiting contact with the applicant (mother) and children in order to obtain access.
The respondent claimed a material change in circumstances based on completion of treatment at a correctional facility and gender transition.
The court dismissed the motion, finding no material change warranting modification and that access was not in the children's best interests given the respondent's history of sexual violence, ongoing risky lifestyle choices, eight-year gap in contact, and the children's stability in their current home.
Notings in default set aside where defendants intended to defend and no prejudice shown.
The moving defendants sought to set aside notings in default entered after they failed to deliver statements of defence in a civil action alleging historical sexual abuse and related claims, including fraudulent conveyance allegations against one defendant.
The court considered the discretionary factors governing relief under Rule 19 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including intention to defend, explanation for delay, promptness in bringing the motion, and prejudice.
The evidence demonstrated that both defendants intended to defend the action, and the delay arose from counsel-related issues and ongoing communications between the parties.
The court emphasized the policy preference for resolving disputes on their merits and noted the absence of meaningful prejudice to the plaintiff.
The notings in default were set aside and the defendants were granted time to deliver their statements of defence.
