Aaron David

The mother (B.J.) brought a motion seeking an order for family reunification/reintegration therapy involving herself, the father (D.M.), and their child (S.M.).

The father and the Office of the Children's Lawyer opposed the motion, citing the child's strong and consistent views against contact with the mother.

The court found that the child's views were significantly influenced by the father, who displayed a lack of willingness to support the child's relationship with the mother and a disregard for judicial process.

Despite the child's stated reluctance, the court determined that reunification therapy was in the child's best interests, given the profound negative influence exerted by the father and the potential long-term negative effects on the child's emotional and psychological well-being.

The motion was granted, ordering all parties to attend and participate in the therapy, with costs to be shared equally.

This case concerns a child protection proceeding under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, where the Children's Aid Society of Toronto sought a final custody order for the child, LN, to the father and stepmother, with supervised access for the mother.

The mother sought custody of the child for herself.

The court found a continuing need for a protection order due to the mother's untreated ketamine addiction, her inability to recognize and meet the child's needs, and her volatile behavior during visits.

The court determined that placing the child in the custody of the father and stepmother was in the child's best interests, as the child had thrived in their consistent and structured care.

The mother's access was ordered to remain supervised, and the father and stepmother were granted full control over the child's documents and travel.

In a child protection matter under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act, the respondent father brought a motion for temporary care and custody of his three children.

The applicant society introduced evidence of a positive urine screen test.

The court found the evidence did not meet the threshold of credibility and trustworthiness required by the Act and ordered a voir dire to determine admissibility.

The society subsequently withdrew reliance on the urine screen test results, and the evidence was struck from the record.

This is a child protection matter under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act involving three children (ages 10, 8, and 6).

The Society sought protection orders based on risk of physical harm.

Following a temporary care and custody hearing on August 10, 2017, the children were placed in the Society's temporary care and custody.

On September 27, 2017, the court heard three motions: the Society's motion to place children with a community member (granted on an unopposed basis), the father's motion for temporary care and custody or expanded access (adjourned), and the mother's motion for specified supervised access (granted).

The endorsement addresses the admissibility of urine analysis evidence the Society sought to introduce regarding the father's alleged substance abuse.