Alison Moonsie-Mohan

The applicant Children and Family Services for York Region brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the two subject children were in need of protection and an order for Crown wardship with no access.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion seeking the return of the children.

The children, who have complex needs including Autism Spectrum Disorder and suspected Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, were apprehended due to severe neglect and lack of medical care.

The parents had not exercised access in 14 months and failed to provide evidence raising a genuine issue for trial.

The court granted the applicant's motion, finding the children in need of protection and ordering Crown wardship with no access, and dismissed the father's motion.

The York Region Children's Aid Society brought a motion to designate the respondent parents, J.H.V. and N.B., as special parties due to alleged mental incapacity in child protection proceedings.

The father, J.H.V., also brought a motion for various relief, including an extension of time to file an Answer and Plan of Care.

The court dismissed the Society's motion to designate the father as a special party, finding he possessed the mental capacity to represent himself, despite his argumentative and unfocused behaviour.

However, the court granted the motion to designate the mother, N.B., as a special party, citing her history of mental illness, disengagement, and inability to understand the risks and consequences of the proceedings.

The father's request for an extension of time for filing an Answer and Plan of Care was granted for both parents.

The Children and Family Services for York Region (CFS) brought motions seeking temporary care and custody of four children (J.F.1, S.C., S.L.F., P.C.) from their mother, M.F. The father, R.C., brought a cross-motion for the children to remain in M.F.'s care with a gradual transition of S.C. and P.C. to his primary care, and for the removal of a family support worker.

The court dismissed both the CFS motions, finding that while parents had significant parenting deficits, the evidence did not meet the "required" test under s.64(8) of the Child and Family Services Act for the older children, nor the "reasonable grounds to believe harm" test under s.51(3) for the youngest child, provided appropriate supervision conditions were in place.

R.C.'s cross-motion was also dismissed, including his request to remove the family support worker due to lack of jurisdiction and merit.

The children remained in M.F.'s temporary care and custody under strict supervision conditions.

On a summary judgment motion in a child protection proceeding, the society sought an order placing the child in the care and custody of the father and stepmother under s. 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The mother opposed the motion but did not attend, relying on filed affidavits.

The court held that the society met its burden under Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules by establishing there was no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the child’s best interests.

Evidence demonstrated significant improvement in the child’s stability, well-being, and development while residing with the father and stepmother, while the mother failed to present a viable parenting plan or evidence of improved capacity.

Summary judgment was granted placing the child in the permanent care and custody of the father and stepmother, with conditional supervised access available to the mother upon meeting specified requirements.

In a child protection proceeding, the respondent mother brought a motion seeking the return of four children from foster care to her temporary care and custody under the supervision of the Society.

The children had been apprehended following concerns about neglect, lack of supervision, and exposure to domestic violence involving the mother’s partner.

Evidence showed a history of domestic violence, inconsistent statements by the mother to police and the court, and indications she intended to resume a relationship with the abusive partner despite a non-contact order.

Applying s. 51(2)(c) and (3) of the Child and Family Services Act, the court found reasonable grounds to believe the children faced a risk of harm if returned to the mother.

The motion was dismissed as the children could not be adequately protected in her care at that time.

The applicant children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection and a deemed custody order placing the child with her paternal aunt and uncle.

The child had been apprehended due to medical and developmental concerns, and the parents' failure to follow medical advice.

The parents opposed the motion.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the child's dramatic improvement in kinship care, the parents' failure to participate in a court-ordered parenting capacity assessment, and the mother's lack of contact with the child for nearly a year.

The court granted summary judgment, found the child in need of protection, and ordered deemed custody to the aunt and uncle with reasonable access for the parents.