Adrian Baker

A motion by the Children's Aid Society of the Region of Peel seeking temporary care and custody of a child (D.D.) born in 2012.

The child suffered severe injuries on July 19, 2018, while in the care of the mother, inflicted by the mother's ex-partner.

The Society sought placement with the father under supervision with discretionary access to the mother.

The mother opposed the motion and sought the return of the child to her care.

The court granted the Society's motion, finding that the mother's significant lack of judgment in maintaining a relationship with the perpetrator, combined with historical concerns regarding her mental health and parenting abilities, meant the child could not be adequately protected in her care.

The child was placed in the temporary care and custody of the father subject to the Society's supervision, with access to the mother to remain supervised and at the Society's discretion.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a final order dated July 22, 2015, seeking to terminate child support for two adult sons or reduce support amounts.

The applicant mother opposed termination and sought a retroactive increase in table child support due to undisclosed income increases.

The court found that the father had failed to make required annual financial disclosures.

The court suspended support for the older son (Bradley) pending proof of academic success, maintained support for the younger son (Ryan) with adjusted amounts, and ordered retroactive adjustments to table child support based on the father's actual income.

Maternal grandparents brought a motion for temporary access to their granddaughter following a three-year period of living together in the grandparents' home.

The mother obtained sole custody in 2015 and moved out in February 2017, thereafter denying the grandparents contact.

The grandparents sought every other weekend access or, alternatively, supervised access through a supervised access center.

The mother opposed the motion entirely.

The court found the mother's decision to deny access was reasonable, as the relationship between the grandparents and mother was poisoned by a history of control, interference, and boundary violations.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence that the child had been negatively impacted by the separation and that the grandparents' motivation was rooted in control rather than the child's best interests.

The Children's Aid Society of the Region of Peel brought a motion for an order placing a newborn child in extended society care pending determination of a protection application seeking Crown wardship.

The child had been apprehended two days after birth due to concerns regarding the mother's mental health issues, transiency, parenting ability, and prior child protection involvement, as well as concerns regarding the father's substance use and inability to present a care plan.

The mother sought return of the child to her care, asserting she had addressed her mental health issues and secured appropriate accommodations.

The court found that the Society had met its burden under section 94(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, establishing reasonable grounds to believe the child would suffer harm if returned to the mother's care, even with conditions.

The motion was granted, placing the child in the interim care of the Society with access at the Society's discretion.

This is a costs endorsement following a family law trial concerning custody, access, child support, and the mother's ability to move the child's residence and travel internationally.

The parties settled most issues during trial, with the mother achieving substantial success on the remaining contested issues regarding relocation and international travel.

The court awarded costs to the mother, finding her to be the successful party while considering the divided success on settled issues and the father's unreasonable behaviour in underpaying child support and failing to satisfy a prior costs order.

A trial concerning parenting and child support arrangements for a two-year-old child born to parties who married in Egypt and subsequently immigrated to Canada.

The parties resolved custody (awarded to mother), communication terms, government documentation access, and child support during trial.

The court determined four remaining contested issues: whether the mother could relocate the child's primary residence outside Ontario, travel to non-Hague Convention countries, travel outside Canada in emergencies, and whether a police enforcement order should be made.

The court found the mother credible and reliable, rejected the father's concerns about her trustworthiness, and granted the mother flexibility to relocate within Canada with notice, travel internationally for vacation purposes, and travel in emergencies without prior notice.

The court declined to issue a police enforcement order.

A child protection agency sought summary judgment to make five children crown wards without access.

The children had been in care for over one year following apprehension due to neglect, domestic violence, substance abuse, and hazardous living conditions.

The father opposed the motion and proposed a kinship plan placing the children with his aunt.

The court found that the parents had failed to address the protection concerns, had not benefited from services offered, and that the proposed kinship plan was not viable.

The court granted the motion and made all five children crown wards without access.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer brought a motion seeking an order that the father undergo a Sexual Offence Specific Assessment.

The child had been apprehended in 2012 following allegations of sexual abuse by the father.

Although the father initially agreed to phallometric testing, he had not completed any assessment despite requests since 2012.

The Society's plan of care was to return the child to the parents' care without requiring the assessment.

The court found that the assessment was necessary to determine whether the father could be a primary caregiver and to assess the risk of sexual harm to the vulnerable child.

The motion was granted.