Baker J.

The Children's Aid Society of Brant brought a Form 14B motion seeking an order requiring respondent parents to file Answers and Plans of Care by October 5, 2020, with a conditional order noting them in default if they failed to comply.

The motion arose from COVID-19 pandemic-related suspension of time limits under Ontario Regulation 73/20.

The court found that the parents had not engaged with the process, had not participated in services, and had not attended hearings.

The children, ages 16 and 12, had resided with their maternal uncle for eight months and expressed a clear wish to remain with him.

The court exercised its discretion to lift the presumptive suspension of the parents' time to file pleadings, finding it was in the best interests of the children to bring the litigation to conclusion.

The parents were noted in default, and a final order was made placing the children in the custody of the maternal uncle with access to the parents.

The respondent sought to amend his pleadings to advance claims for joint custody, child support, and access to the subject child, and to re-open a partially heard motion for summary judgment.

The court found that while the respondent had a right to amend pleadings under the Family Law Rules, many of the proposed claims lacked legal or evidential merit, including joint custody, section 7 extraordinary expenses for transportation, and a restraining order.

The court permitted amendment only for access-related claims, adjusted temporary child support based on the respondent's disclosed income, and scheduled the motion for summary judgment to continue.

The court emphasized that the respondent's primary deficiency was not deficient pleadings but rather the lack of a practical and workable access plan.

A status review application brought by the Children's Aid Society concerning an 11-year-old child placed in the care of the maternal aunt under an order dated January 20, 2016.

The Society failed to comply with statutory and procedural requirements for service of the status review application.

The application was issued before the order's expiry but served significantly late, and the maternal aunt was not served prior to the first return date despite being entitled to service.

The court dismissed the application for non-compliance with Section 64(2)(b) of the Child and Family Services Act and Rule 33(6.1) of the Family Law Rules, finding that jurisdiction for status review had been lost.

This is a temporary care hearing under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act concerning three children.

The central issue determined by the court is who had charge of the children immediately prior to the Society's intervention.

The court found that the two older children were in the charge of their father, M.S., and the youngest child was in the charge of his father, S.D., immediately prior to intervention.

The mother, A.J., had abandoned the children in August 2015 to pursue substance abuse and was subsequently incarcerated intermittently.

The court applied the legal test for temporary care orders, focusing on the nature of the active caring relationship rather than legal custody.

The respondent mother brought a motion to set aside a summary judgment decision rendered on September 29, 2014, in a child protection matter.

The mother sought to reopen the hearing based on newly received hair follicle drug test results from May 2014 and alleged factual errors in the judgment.

The court addressed the threshold jurisdictional issue of whether it was functus officio and determined it retained discretion to reconsider the judgment prior to the order being entered.

The court found that while the mother had not exercised due diligence in obtaining the test results, the evidence would not have changed the outcome given the totality of grave concerns including the mother's historical drug use, failure to cooperate with testing, violent conduct, poor judgment in child supervision, and refusal to accept responsibility for harm to the children.

The motion was dismissed.