Bonnie C. Oldham

The maternal grandmother (M.T.) brought a motion seeking to maintain access to the child (L.T.) at two hours per week, or alternatively at least eight hours per month, following reductions in access ordered by the Children's Aid Society.

The child had been placed in extended society care following a summary judgment motion.

M.T. argued the Society had not demonstrated a material change in circumstances justifying the access reduction.

The Society maintained it had discretion to reduce access based on behavioural issues observed in the child and the need to normalize the child's life.

The court granted the motion in part, finding that while the Society had not acted contrary to the child's best interests in reducing access frequency, a temporary access order should be made allowing access in the community or at M.T.'s home rather than at the supervised family center.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change child support and sought to fix arrears dating back to January 1, 2015.

The respondent father argued that arrears should only be calculated from June 2016, when the mother first raised the issue.

The court applied the fourfold test from D.B.S. v. S.R.G. and determined that the effective notice date was June 2016, not January 1, 2015.

The court found no blameworthy conduct by the father, who had complied with all court orders and provided income information to the mother.

The court fixed arrears at $10,259.13 from June 1, 2016 to February 28, 2018, to be paid at $350 per month.

The court declined to order the father to pay for orthodontic treatment as a section 7 expense due to insufficient information regarding necessity and reasonableness.

A costs decision in a family law matter concerning a motion to prevent relocation.

The father sought to prevent the mother from relocating with their child to Alberta.

The mother withdrew her relocation request after receiving a Voice of the Child Report.

The parties disagreed on costs allocation.

The court found that neither party acted unreasonably and declined to award costs to either party, applying principles that discourage cost awards in settlement situations and emphasizing the importance of the issues involved.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment in a status review application concerning a child who had been in care for nearly four years following apprehension due to physical and sexual abuse.

The child's mother sought to have the child returned to her care, but was in an ongoing intimate relationship with the man who had previously abused the child.

The court granted the Society's motion and ordered that the child remain in extended society care with access to the mother and siblings, finding that the mother's continued relationship with the abuser presented an ongoing risk to the child and that she had not demonstrated sufficient insight into the protection concerns.

A foster parent sought expanded rights of participation in a child protection proceeding at the access stage following a crown ward order.

The foster parent requested disclosure of the Society file (excluding the Kin Assessment), the ability to attend trial, cross-examine witnesses, present evidence and make submissions, and the ability to participate in arguments regarding admissibility of evidence.

The maternal grandmother opposed the motion, arguing that expanded participation was akin to party status and would be procedurally unfair.

The court granted the motion, finding that at the post-finding stage, a less restrictive approach should apply to foster parent participation, particularly where the foster parent is the identified permanency plan and has a legal interest in the outcome.

The father brought a motion seeking to enforce the terms of a temporary order regarding unsupervised access and to determine reasonable section 7 expenses for the child's special needs.

The mother opposed the transition to unsupervised access and sought confirmation of various extraordinary expenses including speech therapy, occupational therapy, tutoring, after-school care, and summer camps.

The court determined which expenses were reasonable and necessary in relation to the child's best interests and the parties' means, fixed a monthly contribution amount for section 7 expenses, and ordered the commencement of unsupervised access.

The Children's Aid Society of the Region of Waterloo brought a summary judgment motion seeking to make the child a Crown ward without access for adoption purposes, or alternatively, to terminate a supervision order.

The maternal grandmother sought to be added as a party and brought a cross-motion for expanded interim access.

The Ontario Court of Justice granted the Society's motion in part, making the child a ward of the Crown, and dismissed the grandmother's interim motion for expanded access.

The court determined that the child's psychological bonding to the current foster parent and the need for permanency outweighed the kinship plan, but reserved the issue of access to the grandmother for a focused hearing.