Alisa Williams

The applicant father brought a motion seeking equal parenting time.

The parties had previously signed temporary minutes of settlement for parenting time, which included a review clause for an upcoming case conference.

The respondent mother argued the father must show a material change in circumstances to vary the temporary order.

The court held that no material change was required because the temporary order was intended to bridge the gap until the case conference, and the father only brought the initial urgent motion because the mother had denied him parenting time.

The court granted the father's request for extended parenting time, finding that overnight stays instead of evening drop-offs were in the children's best interests.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society of Hamilton brought a motion for summary judgment in a child protection proceeding involving three children.

The Society sought a custody order placing the oldest child with her biological father in Alberta, and Crown wardship with no access for the two younger children.

The mother and the father of the younger children opposed the motion, seeking a trial and the eventual return of the children to their care.

The court found that the parents had profound and unresolved issues including mental health struggles, substance abuse, and domestic violence, and had failed to make meaningful progress.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The oldest child was placed in her father's custody, and the younger children were made Crown wards with no access, as the parents failed to establish that access would be beneficial and meaningful or that it would not impair future opportunities for adoption.

The paternal grandmother brought a motion to be added as a party to the continuing divorce action between the parents, where the father's access was the primary issue.

The grandmother had been supervising the father's access and argued she should be a party because her status as a supervisor was in dispute.

Both the mother and the father opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that being a supervisor is not a substantive right and that adding the grandmother would needlessly complicate the proceedings.

Costs of $1,000 were awarded to the mother.

A father applied for custody of a young child and raised numerous allegations of neglect, abuse, and health concerns regarding the mother’s care.

The court considered extensive evidence, including Office of the Children’s Lawyer reports, a psychiatric assessment suggesting features of schizotypal personality disorder, and repeated unsubstantiated reports made by the father to authorities.

The court found the mother to be the credible and stable primary caregiver and determined the father demonstrated little insight into child development and a persistent inability to support the child’s relationship with the mother.

Given the father’s behaviour and risk of undermining the child’s security and relationship with the mother, the court ordered sole custody to the mother and restricted the father’s access.

Access was limited to supervised visits at a supervised access centre.

Following a concluded child protection trial in which the court ordered Crown wardship without access for the child, the court addressed a related proceeding under the Children's Law Reform Act involving claims for custody, access, and child support.

Because the child protection order had already determined the child’s status and eliminated parental access, the court found no basis to continue adjudicating the family law claims.

The court therefore dismissed all outstanding claims in the CLRA proceeding as moot in light of the Crown wardship order made in the child protection file.

The applicant society sought an order for Crown wardship without access for a two-year-old child who suffered severe, non-accidental brain injuries while in the parents' care.

The respondent mother sought the return of the child, and the respondent father supported placement with the paternal grandmother.

The court reviewed extensive medical evidence, a parenting capacity assessment, and a kinship care assessment.

Finding that the mother lacked the necessary skills to care for a special needs child and that the paternal grandmother faced significant stressors, the court concluded that placement with either was not in the child's best interests.

Given the statutory time limits and the child's need for permanency, the court ordered Crown wardship without access.