At para. 81, Price J. referred to the decision of Corbett J. in De Melo v. Gooding, 2010 ONSC 2271: 81 As Corbett J. noted in De Melo, the threshold requirement for a material change in circumstances is not intended to condemn the parties to a lengthy process of dispute resolution that holds no reasonable prospect of enabling them to resolve their differences: This is not to encourage interminable court attendances, or unending participation in formal dispute resolution outside the court process. There comes a point at which the frequency and intensity of conflict may warrant a change in the overall custody and access regime, in an effort to reduce that conflict. In other words, the failure of the processes established by the parties may, itself, be a material change of circumstances, just as the apparent inability of the parties to work with a specific parenting coordinator could justify changing the coordinator in Litman v. Sherman. [Emphasis added by Price J.]
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.