Aileen Manalang

The applicant father sought the return of his child to Ukraine under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, alleging wrongful removal by the respondent mother.

The court found the removal was wrongful but dismissed the application, determining that the child was now settled in Canada (Article 12 exception) and that returning her to Ukraine posed a grave risk of physical or psychological harm due to the ongoing war (Article 13(b) exception).

This is the second appeal concerning the protection of a four-year-old child.

The Ontario Court initially found the child in need of protection but issued a one-year supervision order.

The Society successfully appealed to the Superior Court, which substituted a protection order placing the child with his grandmother and uncle.

The parents (J.C. and J.C.) then appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal.

However, during the appeal process, the matter returned to the Ontario Court for a Status Review, where the parents consented to an order for the child to reside in the grandmother's home.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the parents' appeal as moot, as the underlying issue had been resolved by consent.

The moving party mother brought an urgent motion seeking alternate week residency of the parties' child after the responding party father cancelled her court-ordered access due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court applied the urgency criteria from the Chief Justice's Notice to the Profession and determined that the mother's allegations of wrongful retention of the child met the definition of urgency.

The court directed that the motion proceed and set a timetable for the exchange of materials.

A child protection application under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 concerning a child born to parents with a history of prior child protection findings.

The respondent father had been convicted of serious sexual offences including sexual abuse of a child, possession of child pornography, and indecent exposure.

The child was apprehended at birth and placed with the paternal grandmother and uncle.

The Society sought a finding that the child was in need of protection under clause 74(2)(d) (risk of sexual abuse or exploitation) and sought placement with the paternal grandmother and uncle under Society supervision.

The respondent parents sought dismissal of the application or, alternatively, return of the child to their care.

The court found the child was in need of protection but determined that placement with the parents under Society supervision was in the child's best interests, recognizing the father's prosocial behaviour over many years, the mother's demonstrated protective capacity, and the child's strong attachment to both parents.

The Windsor-Essex Children's Aid Society brought a motion seeking production of hospital records for the respondent mother from January 1, 2016 to August 31, 2017.

The Society sought these records to investigate its theory that the mother was a victim of domestic violence perpetrated by the father.

The respondents opposed the motion, arguing it constituted a fishing expedition.

The court found the Society's request as originally framed was over-broad but granted a narrowed version of the motion, restricting production to hospital admission records where the mother presented with physical injuries or complaints about domestic conflict.