A babysitter in Manitoba became very fond of the little girl she looked after, and the child adored the babysitter. The parents decided to hire a live-in nanny and let the babysitter go, but the babysitter still came each afternoon to visit the child. After a while it became clear that these visits were making It difcult for the nanny to establish a good relationship with the child. The parents told the babysitter that she could no longer visit the child. The babysitter has come to you for advice. She would like to apply to the court for access. Would the babysitter' 5 application for access be likely to succeed? Explain, quoting the relevant law.ln both of these cases, the courts held that an access order in favogr of someone who is not a blood relative should be set aside in the face of opposition from the mother, who wished to exercise responsible control over the destiny of her child and herself. Cyrenne v Moar (1986), 2 RFL (3d) 414 Manitoba Court of Appeal, Monnin CJM, Huband, and Twaddle JJA M.J. Bennett, for appellant. C.N. Guberman, for respondent. (No 193/86) 16th June 1986. The judgment of the court was delivered by [1] MONNIN CJM (orally):-This is an appeal from a decision of Helper J. who dismissed the mother's application to strike out the access privileges granted to Mr. Cyrenne by a prior order of Simonsen J. [2] We are of the view that it is not in the best interest of the child, Sonya Rose Moar, that access be given to Mr. Cyrenne. The original order most probably would not have been made if all the facts had been disclosed. [3] We strike out the access rights granted to Mr. Cyrenne and will give more detailed reasons in due course. [4] The matter of costs is reserved and will be dealt with in our extended reasons. [5] 20th June 1986. Written reasons for judgment. The judgment of the court was delivered by [6] HUBAND JA:-This court has decided that the visiting privileges accorded to John Cyrenne should end. What follows are my reasons for allowing the appeal of Annette Moar on 16th June 1986. [7] John Cyrenne is not the father of the child, Sonya, in whom he has taken such keen interest. John Cyrenne met Annette Moar in 1979 and had some form of relationship with her extending through to 1982. During part of 1981 and 1982 they maintained adjoining suites in the same dwelling house, and during that period of time the relationship seemed to have been at its closest. [8] Annette Moar was already the mother of a son who was born in 1974. The daughter, Sonya, was born on 19th June 1981. Initially John Cyrenne believed that he had fathered the child, but subsequent blood tests have confirmed that he is not the father of the child [9] Believing the child to be his, John Cyrenne participated to some degree in the care of the baby, although he made no significant financial contribution. No doubt he developed a genuine fondness for the child. [10] In June 1982 John Cyrenne was sentenced to jail for six months, and the somewhat tenuous relationship between himself and Annette Moar began to crumble. When he was released from prison two months later, Annette Moar had moved to different accommodation. She began a new relationship with another man in the fall of 1982-a relationship which has persisted through to the present date. In October 1982 she told John Cyrenne that he was not the father of the child, Sonya, but John Cyrenne did not accept her statement at that time.[11] During 1983 John Cyrenne continued to visit the child from time to time, but with growing reluctance on the part of the mother and her new companion. [12] By the beginning of 1984 Annette Moar made it clear that she wanted John Cyrenne's visits with her daughter to end. His response was to seek custody or access by way of proceedings in court. On 22nd February 1984 he applied in the Provincial Court, Family Division, for custody of, or access to, the child. Annette Moar caused an answer to be filed asserting that John Cyrenne was not the father of the child, and on 27th February his application for custody or access was withdrawn. [13] A fresh application seeking custody or access was filed in the same court on let March 1984. This application also sought a declaration of parentage. The parties submitted to blood tests, and the results of those tests demonstrated that John Cyrenne was not the father of the child. Ultimately, this second application was discontinued on 6th December 1984. [14] But once again, a fresh action was commenced a few weeks later. This time a petition was filed in the Court of Queen's Bench on 17th December 1984, seeking access only, and relying upon 5. 1.5 of the Child Wejfare Act of Manitoba. [15] Annette Moar did not contest this petition. Later on she was to explain that she wilted under the bombardment of continuing applications and the constant harassment of John Cyrenne to gain access to the child. In any event, on 18th February 1985 John Cyrenne obtained an order from Simonsen J. in the Court of Queen's Bench granting him access to the child each Sunday from 10:00 am. to 7:00 pm. While the order was made without opposition from Annette Moar, it would appear that given the unusual nature of the order allowing access in favour of a person who is not a blood relation, Simonsen J. insisted upon some evidence before making the order. John Cyrenne testified and, since the petition was not opposed, the order was made. [16] Problems with respect to the access arose almost immediately. About one month after the order was made, Annette Moar was seeking legal aid in order to move to set aside the access order, and within a further month John Cyrenne had instituted criminal contempt proceedings against Annette Moar for her disobedience of the access order. Attendances at Annette Moar's residence to exercise rights became confrontations. In June 1985 Annette Moar brought a motion in the Court of Queen's Bench seeking an order to vary the order of Simonsen J. by deleting the access privileges. John Cyrenne countered with a motion for an order of contempt against Annette Moar, and an order to vary the terms of the access order of Simonsen J. by \"increasing the times of access.\" These two motions came before Schwartz J. of the Court of Queen's Bench in July 1985. In order to defuse the confrontations between the protagonists, Schwartz J. ordered an immediate variation to provide that some third party, other than John Cyrenne, attend to pick up the child. As to the merits of the motion and counter-motion, Schwartz J. ordered that they be dealt with by way of a trial in the fall of 1985. [17] The trial commenced before Helper J. in November 1985. After two days of testimony the learned trial judge decided to order an assessment report from a family conciliation counsellor, and the testimony of the author of that report was heard on 26th April 1986. Helper J. delivered judgment on that same date. Helper J. did not vary the access as ordered by Simonsen J. approximately a year earlier. [18] The learned trial judge seemed to believe that there must be proof of changed circumstances to