Bayly Guslits

The moving parties, the aunt and uncle of a child apprehended at birth, sought to be added as parties to a child protection proceeding where the Society sought Crown wardship.

The Society opposed the motion, arguing that the mother could advance the kinship plan.

The court granted the motion, finding that adding the aunt and uncle was in the child's best interests, would not delay the proceedings, and was necessary to allow them to independently advance their kinship plan.

The Children's Aid Society sought a temporary care and custody order for a child with complex medical needs, following concerns of "medical child abuse" by the maternal grandmother.

Despite an initial ADR process, a final resolution was not reached.

The court considered a consent order, signed by all parties except the maternal grandmother, to place the child with the father and paternal grandmother under Society supervision.

The court reviewed extensive medical evidence detailing the child's significant improvement after being removed from the maternal grandmother's primary care.

The court granted the temporary supervision order, placing the child with the father and paternal grandmother, with conditions, and ordered supervised access for the maternal grandmother due to the credible medical concerns.

The applicant mother moved with the two children from London to Brampton without providing the 60 days' written notice required by the final order.

The respondent father brought an emergency motion for the return of the children, and the mother brought a cross-motion to remain in Brampton.

The court applied the Plumley factors for interim mobility, finding a genuine issue for trial and no compelling circumstances to justify an interim move.

The court ordered the children returned to London pending trial, noting the mother could not benefit from creating a new status quo without proper notice.