T. Charuk

The respondent brought a motion seeking to enforce parenting time orders, alleging the applicant was alienating their daughter.

The motion was dismissed, as was the applicant's verbal request for a section 30 assessment.

The applicant sought full recovery costs of $17,972.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $8,000 to the applicant, finding the respondent did not act unreasonably in bringing the motion and noting the applicant's divided success regarding the section 30 assessment.

The respondent father brought a motion to enforce existing shared parenting orders and for makeup time, alleging the applicant mother was alienating their 14-year-old daughter, who refused to attend parenting time.

The daughter suffered from severe anxiety and had threatened suicide.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it could not determine on untested affidavit evidence whether the mother was responsible for the non-compliance or whether forcing compliance would be in the child's best interests given her mental health issues.

The mother's informal request for a section 30 assessment was also dismissed without prejudice.

The applicant father and respondent mother both brought motions regarding parenting time for their two-year-old child.

The father sought unsupervised parenting time, while the mother sought professionally supervised contact due to the father's absence and alleged substance abuse.

The court ordered temporary supervised parenting time, finding that the father and child were essentially strangers.

However, the court rejected the need for a professional centre, allowing the paternal grandparents and aunt to supervise the visits at the paternal home, subject to conditions including abstinence from drugs and alcohol.

The parties, who share joint custody and equal parenting time of their three-year-old child, brought a last-minute motion to determine which school the child should attend for Junior Kindergarten.

The applicant mother proposed a school in Waterdown, while the respondent father proposed a school in Ancaster.

The court found both proposals had merit but ultimately ordered the child to be enrolled in the respondent's school district, citing the greater long-term stability of the respondent's residential and employment situation.

No costs were awarded.