Law360 Canada ( October 28, 2026, 9:45 AM EDT) -- Appeal by Stewart from order varying a consent final order by ordering equal parenting time and giving Richardson final decision-making authority for the parties’ then seven-year-old child; preliminary application by Richardson to dismiss the appeal for Stewart’s non-compliance with court orders; and application by Stewart to adduce fresh and new evidence. The consent order gave Stewart primary residence and the parties shared decision-making, subject to parenting review. A report prepared under s. 211 of the Family Law Act (FLA) recommended equal parenting time and final decision-making authority for Richardson. Stewart did not use a date set for financial applications before the judge summarily granted Richardson’s variation application. The judge declined to seek the child’s views because pressure to express a view could cause harm. Stewart submitted that summary trial was procedurally unfair and unsuitable, that the judge gave inappropriate weight to the report, improperly admitted the parenting coordinator’s determinations, failed to consider the child’s views and failed to assess family violence under ss. 37 and 38 of the FLA. She sought to adduce court file materials concerning the procedural history and post-trial evidence concerning Richardson’s financial disclosure. Richardson submitted that the judge made no error. He sought dismissal of the appeal because Stewart failed to pay ordered fines and costs and disobeyed parenting and disclosure orders. Stewart attributed the non-payment to inability to pay....