Achille Kabongo

The decision addresses a motion by the applicant, Ms. Hill-Reyes, to have the added respondent, Ms. Pena, declared in default for failing to serve and file an Answer in a high-conflict family law proceeding involving custody and adoption issues.

The court reviews the procedural history, the barriers faced by the self-represented respondent living abroad, and the repeated opportunities given to participate.

Ultimately, the court finds Ms. Pena in default and imposes the consequences set out in subrule 1(8.4) of the Family Law Rules, barring her from further participation except as a witness.

The mother brought a motion for summary judgment seeking sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of the parties' two children, as well as child support.

The father requested an adjournment, claiming he had been in Africa for health reasons and questioning his paternity of one child.

The court partially denied the adjournment, proceeding with the parenting issues but adjourning the child support claims.

Finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, the court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, noting she had been the primary caregiver and the father had not seen the children in over three years.

This motion concerned a justification hearing under section 51(2) of the Child and Family Services Act regarding a temporary order placing two children, R.M. and S.M., in the care of Valoris.

The respondent mother sought to modify the temporary order to return S.M. to her care, subject to Valoris's supervision.

The court found that Valoris met its burden under section 51(3) to demonstrate reasonable grounds to believe S.M. would likely suffer harm if returned to the mother's care, and that supervision alone would be insufficient.

Concerns included the mother's inability to address S.M.'s special needs (hygiene, school absenteeism), her volatile relationship with a partner with a history of violence, and the physical discipline of R.M. The motion to return S.M. was dismissed, and the children were ordered to remain in foster care.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa sought Crown wardship for the child ZS via summary judgment.

The mother opposed, arguing for another chance to parent.

The court found the child in need of protection due to the parents' history of missed visits, domestic conflict, and inability to meet the child's significant medical needs, especially after an unsuccessful reintegration attempt.

Given the child had been in care for 18 months, exceeding statutory timelines, the court determined it was in the child's best interest to be made a Crown ward for adoption, dismissing the mother's arguments as unsubstantiated denials.