Achille Kabongo

The applicant mother sought a divorce, sole decision-making responsibility, and child support for two children.

The respondent father sought to set aside a stepparent adoption order regarding the older child, alleging it was obtained by fraud, and sought primary care of that child to return to the Dominican Republic.

The court found that while the father had fraudulently obtained the biological mother's consent for immigration and the adoption order was based on false representations, setting aside the adoption was not in the child's best interests.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility, ordered supervised parenting time for the father, and ordered the father to pay ongoing child support and arrears.

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.

Child protection agency sought summary judgment declaring three children in need of protection and requesting permanent Crown wardship for twin infants.

The evidence included medical findings of multiple fractures consistent with physical abuse inflicted while the children were in the care of the mother and her partner, along with evidence of parental instability and limited parenting capacity.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the twins’ protection status and their best interests, and found that adoption planning through Crown wardship was appropriate.

However, the court determined that a trial was required to decide the appropriate long‑term placement for the older child.

The biological father of the twins was permitted to participate and propose a care plan.

On competing interim motions in a parenting dispute involving an 11-month-old child, the court applied the best interests of the child as the governing consideration.

The father sought joint custody, a defined access schedule, child support terms, and financial disclosure; the mother sought dismissal of that motion, interim custody, and restrictions on access being exercised in Ottawa.

The court granted the mother interim custody and principal residence, ordered a staged access regime for the father that balanced breastfeeding and the need to foster a meaningful father-child relationship, fixed interim child support at $181 per month retroactive to September 1, 2014, and compelled disclosure from the mother.

Success was divided and no costs were awarded.

Child protection proceedings in which a children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment declaring several children in need of protection and seeking their return to the mother under a supervision order.

The evidence demonstrated extensive past concerns including exposure to domestic violence, substance abuse, neglect of medical and hygiene needs, and inappropriate discipline.

The mother consented to a finding of protection and supervision, while another responding party opposed the motion and requested a trial or placement of one child in his care.

The court held that the evidence overwhelmingly established the children were in need of protection and that no genuine issue requiring a trial existed.

Applying the statutory requirement to consider the least disruptive measures, the court ordered the children returned to the mother under supervision.