The parties, parents of a four-year-old child, brought competing interim motions.
The mother sought to relocate the child from Hornepayne to Sudbury to pursue education and reside with her new partner, and requested that the father's access be supervised following allegations of sexual impropriety.
The father sought expanded unsupervised access and opposed the relocation.
The court applied the Gordon v. Goertz factors and determined that an interim relocation was not in the child's best interests, as it would disrupt the child's relationship with the father and community prior to a full trial.
Regarding access, the court noted that the Children's Aid Society had investigated the allegations and found them unsubstantiated, concluding there were no protection concerns.
Consequently, the court dismissed the mother's motions, denied the interim relocation, and reinstated the father's unsupervised access.
