Chitsabesan v. Yuhendran

Chitsabesan v. Yuhendran

The motion was allowed because the best interests of the three‑year‑old child required fostering a meaningful relationship with the father and paternal family; nursery school attendance did not outweigh that interest; prior interim access had proceeded without difficulty; and the May 6, 2015 order purporting to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2016 ONCA 103
Parties
Applicant; Responding Party; Moving Party by Cross Motion: Janani Nicola Chitsabesan; Respondent; Moving Party; Responding Party by Cross Motion: Ajanthan Yuhendran
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal (family Law Custody, Access and Relocation) / Appellate Motion for Interim Access Heard With Appeal; Appeal Reserved
Outcome
Appellant's motion for interim access allowed; respondent's cross‑motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
Interim Access, Relocation of Child, Best Interests of the Child, Jurisdiction of Orders, Access Scheduling and Travel Logistics
Source Language
english
Family Law Custody and Access Relocation Appeal Interim Access Relocation of Child Best Interests of the Child Jurisdiction of Orders +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Janani Nicola Chitsabesan

Applicant; Responding Party; Moving Party by Cross Motion

Ajanthan Yuhendran

Respondent; Moving Party; Responding Party by Cross Motion

Procedural Posture

Appeal (family Law Custody, Access and Relocation) / Appellate Motion for Interim Access Heard With Appeal; Appeal Reserved

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant interim access for the appellant father to bring the child to Toronto from January 12, 2016 to February 4, 2016
  2. 2 Whether the child's nursery school attendance outweighs the benefit of a meaningful relationship with the non-custodial parent and his family
  3. 3 Whether the May 6, 2015 access order restricting access to one-week blocks is valid or a nullity

Ratio Decidendi

The motion was allowed because the best interests of the three‑year‑old child required fostering a meaningful relationship with the father and paternal family; nursery school attendance did not outweigh that interest; prior interim access had proceeded without difficulty; and the May 6, 2015 order purporting to restrict access to one‑week blocks was made without jurisdiction and therefore a nullity, leaving the November 13, 2013 order (which did not impose one‑week block restrictions) as the governing order.

Court Disposition

Appellant's motion for interim access allowed; respondent's cross‑motion dismissed.

Orders

  • Appellant's motion for interim access from January 12, 2016 to February 4, 2016 is allowed.
  • Respondent's cross‑motion to dismiss the appellant's motion is dismissed.