Timothy J. Bucci

On a summary judgment motion in a grandmother-contact case, the court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

Applying Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules, the Hryniak summary judgment framework, and the best-interests analysis under s. 24(2) of the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court gave primary weight to the children’s safety, stability, and independently expressed preferences.

The court found that one child’s views were unequivocally opposed to contact, while the other was open only to highly structured and supervised contact after past boundary-violating conduct by the grandmother.

The motion to dismiss the application was granted in part: no contact was ordered for one child, limited supervised contact was ordered for the other, the request for a leave requirement was refused, and all remaining claims were dismissed.

Following a family law motion concerning a father's request for unsupervised access to the youngest child, the court was asked to determine costs after the parties failed to reach agreement.

The father had sought unsupervised access, shared transportation for access visits, and police enforcement of access.

While he succeeded on the issue of whether access had to occur in the presence of the maternal grandmother, other aspects of his position were not accepted, including transportation sharing and police enforcement.

The court found both parties were motivated by legitimate concerns for the child’s best interests and that the motion produced a divided result.

In the circumstances, and considering the mother's limited financial means, the court declined to award costs.