Susan Mary Duggan

The applicant father unilaterally removed two young children from their habitual residence in Fort McMurray, Alberta, to Ontario, claiming it was for a "vacation." The respondent mother sought the children's immediate return to Alberta, arguing it was their habitual residence and that the father's removal was wrongful.

The father sought to establish Ontario's jurisdiction and limit the mother's parenting time.

The court found that Alberta remained the children's habitual residence, that the mother had neither acquiesced nor unduly delayed in seeking their return, and that the father's actions were inappropriate and irresponsible.

The court declined jurisdiction over the merits of the parenting dispute and ordered the children's immediate return to Alberta, with the Alberta Court of Justice to handle future parenting and child support matters.

The respondent mother brought a motion to vary an existing access order to allow the four-year-old child to attend full-time junior kindergarten, and for further financial and medical disclosure from the applicant father.

The father brought a cross-motion regarding access.

The court varied the access schedule to accommodate the child's full-time attendance at junior kindergarten while ensuring regular contact with the father.

The court ordered the father to provide the requested financial disclosure but dismissed the mother's request for the father's unredacted medical records, finding they were not necessary for the determination of the issues.

The respondent brought a motion to enforce an offer to settle, which the applicant opposed, arguing that the offer had not been accepted.

The court found that the applicant's offer, which included a condition regarding a potential Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) debt, was not fully accepted by the respondent.

The respondent's partial acceptance constituted a counter-offer, meaning no consensus ad idem was reached on all essential terms.

Consequently, the respondent's motion to enforce the settlement was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the applicant.

The respondent father brought a motion to vary a temporary order governing access to the parties’ infant child by seeking expanded parenting time, including additional overnight access and earlier commencement of weekend visits.

The applicant mother opposed the timing of expanded overnight access, arguing that any increase should occur more gradually.

The court considered the child’s best interests and the evidentiary record, which included allegations between the parties and multiple police and child protection contacts that produced no substantiated concerns.

The court concluded that expanded parenting time with the father was appropriate but that immediate Friday overnight access would be premature.

The order was varied to introduce midweek overnight access and delayed commencement of alternating weekend access beginning on Fridays.