A. Williams

The Catholic Children's Aid Society brought a motion seeking to implement temporary minutes of settlement that would place a 5-year-old child with the mother and grant unsupervised overnight access to the father.

The court rejected the minutes of settlement after discovering the mother had previously alleged the father raped the child multiple times, and that the mother admitted she would leave the child with the father despite these concerns.

The court found the Society's evidence inadequate to explain why the child would be safe with either parent under these circumstances, and dismissed the motion, resulting in the child returning to foster care.

The parties brought cross-motions to change a final consent parenting order.

The mother sought to reduce the father's parenting time to alternate weekends and retain sole decision-making, citing escalating conflict, family violence, and the father's aggressive behaviour during police station exchanges.

The father sought equal parenting time and sole decision-making, alleging the mother and her new partner were maliciously trying to ruin his life and alienate the child.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the escalating conflict and the failure of the existing exchange mechanisms.

The court ordered a strict weekabout equal-time schedule to reduce transitions, maintained the mother's sole decision-making authority, and strictly prohibited any face-to-face contact between the parents during exchanges or otherwise.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel the defendants, the City of Hamilton and the Hamilton Region Conservation Authority, to answer questions refused during examinations for discovery.

The underlying action involves a minor plaintiff who sustained catastrophic injuries after falling from a trail at Albion Falls Park.

The court reviewed the refused questions, applying the test for relevance under Rule 31.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court ordered the defendants to answer several questions related to prior safety concerns, incident reports, and the identities of individuals with knowledge, while upholding refusals for irrelevant questions.

Success was divided, and costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order to place three children in extended society care with no access to the respondent parents.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding the need for protection, citing chronic exposure to domestic violence and conflict in the home.

The children were ordered into extended society care.

The court granted summary judgment denying access to one father who had no relationship with his child.

However, the court found a genuine issue for trial regarding access for the mother and the other father, directing that issue to a focused hearing.

The Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton brought a motion seeking permission to proceed with a summary judgment motion in a complex child protection file involving three children.

The motion was heard via Zoom during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court considered the urgency of child protection matters and the court's evolving protocols.

One respondent, K.K., who was self-represented, requested an adjournment to retain counsel.

The court granted the Society's request to proceed with the summary judgment motion, allowing K.K. a brief extension to file further materials and retain counsel, emphasizing the need for timely resolution for the children.

The applicant mother sought an urgent order for the immediate return of her two children, who had been unilaterally retained by the respondent father after an access visit.

The court found the matter urgent, applying the factors from *Thomas v. Wohleber*.

The court strongly condemned the father's self-help actions, noting his failure to seek judicial intervention despite serious allegations and his attempt to gain an advantage during the COVID-19 court suspension.

The court ordered the immediate return of the children to the mother's care and granted a police enforcement order, emphasizing that unilateral changes to a long-standing status quo are not in the children's best interests.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion during the COVID-19 suspension of court operations to reinstate his access to his two children, aged 9 and 11.

The mother had unilaterally terminated a long-standing joint custody and access arrangement, citing the children's concerns about COVID-19 and a recent trip to Mexico.

The Children's Aid Society had previously closed a file regarding unverified allegations against the father and expected the family to follow the existing order.

The court, acting as Triage Judge, determined the matter was potentially urgent due to the sudden interruption of a generous timesharing arrangement.

The motion was allowed to proceed, with timelines set for the mother to file responding materials.

The judge emphasized the overwhelming caselaw presumption that parenting arrangements should continue during COVID-19 unless health or safety issues are proven.

This is a triage endorsement concerning an urgent motion brought by the respondent father during the COVID-19 pandemic to liberalize access to the parties' child, including overnight visits and driving privileges, based on a psychiatrist's report.

The applicant mother opposed, challenging the report and seeking disclosure from the father's psychologist.

The court, acting as Triage Judge, determined that the specific issues of liberalizing access were not urgent, being complex matters without significant prejudice if delayed.

However, the court clarified that any reduction in the father's existing time-sharing arrangement would be presumptively urgent.

The father's motion to proceed was not authorized at this time, without prejudice to future urgent requests if existing access was threatened.

The mother in a child protection proceeding brought a motion requesting the appointment of the Office of the Children's Lawyer for her 7-year-old child.

The Society opposed the motion, noting it was seeking Extended Society Care with no access and a summary judgment motion was already scheduled.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the child was under the age of 8 and developmentally immature, and the mother failed to provide evidence that the appointment would assist the court or the child in any specific way.

The applicant husband brought a motion for an order allowing him to attend the questioning of the respondent wife.

The wife opposed his attendance, citing exceptional circumstances based on longstanding abuse and control consistent with their cultural background.

The court found that the wife did not meet the burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances to displace the husband's right to be present.

The court ordered the questioning to proceed with the husband present, but directed that he not speak and be seated away from the wife and out of her line of sight to avoid possible intimidation.

The Children's Aid Society of Hamilton brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a protection finding and Crown wardship without access for the child J.B. The Mother, P.B., opposed the motion, arguing she deserved a chance to parent.

The court reviewed the Mother's history, including four other children not in her care, concerns about substance abuse, domestic violence, lack of follow-through with counselling, and missed access visits.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, determined the child was in need of protection under sections 37(2)(b)(i) and (g) of the CFSA, and ordered Crown wardship without access, concluding that access would impair the child's future opportunities for adoption.