Brian Fisher

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa sought extended society care for four children, aiming for adoption by their maternal grandmother, citing ongoing risks from parental conflict, inattentiveness, and lack of support.

The parents sought the children's return under a supervision order, proposing to live with the father's sister for support.

The court found that while some protection concerns minimally existed, the parents had made significant progress, particularly since the father's sobriety.

The court dismissed the Society's request for extended society care and ordered the children to be placed in the parents' care and custody, subject to a 12-month supervision order, finding this to be in the children's best interests and the least restrictive measure.

This is a child protection summary judgment motion brought by the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa seeking a finding that three children (S.L., J.L., N.C.) are in need of protection and an order for extended society care.

The parents contested the grounds for protection and the disposition.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the children being in need of protection under multiple subsections of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, and ordered extended society care.

However, the court found a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the parents' access to the children.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Child and Family Services Review Board, the Children's Aid Society, and the Ottawa Police Services Board regarding a brief child protection investigation.

The court upheld a motion judge's dismissal of the application against the police board as frivolous under Rule 2.1.01.

The court dismissed the remainder of the application due to excessive and unexplained delay in perfecting it, and alternatively found that the board's decision was reasonable and procedurally fair.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a summary judgment motion seeking an order for extended society care for four children.

The parents opposed the motion, seeking a trial.

The court applied a highly cautionary approach to summary judgment in child protection matters, noting recent positive changes by the parents and questioning the admissibility and relevance of some of the Society's evidence, particularly police reports.

While dismissing the parents' argument regarding a custody order to the grandmother without her consent, the court found a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the best interests of the children, specifically between extended society care and a return to parental care under supervision.

The Society's motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion under s. 130 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act for the production of third-party medical records relating to the mother's mental health.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing she had been incorrectly diagnosed with bipolar disorder and that the records were irrelevant or their disclosure would cause harm.

The court found the records met the threshold of being potentially relevant to the child protection proceedings and ordered their production, limited to records from April 1, 2019 onwards that specifically relate to the mother's mental health.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a summary judgment motion seeking a final order for extended society care for the child, C.R.P., who is an Inuk child and has been in care beyond statutory timelines.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing there was a triable issue regarding the child's best interests, particularly given her improving mental health and active search for housing.

The court dismissed the Society's motion, emphasizing the "highly cautionary" approach to summary judgment in child protection cases, especially those involving Indigenous children, and the need to consider "super weighted" best interests factors under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 and the Federal Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Metis children, youth and families.

The court found genuine issues requiring a trial, particularly concerning the interplay of statutory timelines and Indigenous child welfare principles.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order to place a two-year-old child in extended society care for the purpose of adoption.

The child had been in care since birth due to the parents' long-standing alcohol addiction, domestic violence, and limited parenting capacity.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the parents failed to demonstrate meaningful steps to address the protection concerns.

The motion was granted, placing the child in extended society care with supervised access for the parents.

In a child protection proceeding involving four children, a non-party community member brought a motion to be added as a party to put forward a plan of care.

The Children's Aid Society did not consent but did not oppose the motion.

Applying the five-part test from Highland Shores CAS, the court found that the non-party had a legal interest, was capable of putting forward a plan of care, and that her addition was necessary to determine the issues and in the children's best interests.

The motion was granted and the non-party was added as a respondent.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection and an order for extended society care.

The court granted summary judgment on the finding that the child was in need of protection due to the parents' long-standing alcohol abuse and history of domestic violence.

However, the court dismissed the motion for summary judgment regarding the disposition, criticizing the society for 'document dumping' by filing 460 pages of unfocused affidavit evidence, which made it impossible to determine the best interests of the child without a trial.

In a child protection motion concerning a newborn apprehended at birth, the parents sought return of the child under a temporary supervision order and the society sought continued temporary society care with prejudice.

The court applied the statutory test under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 and found reasonable grounds to believe the child would be at risk of harm if placed with the parents, based on longstanding parental alcohol addiction, repeated domestic violence incidents, unresolved parenting-capacity concerns, and the parents’ failure to address prior protection concerns arising in proceedings involving another child.

The court further held that supervision terms would not adequately manage the risk because the parents denied their addiction issues, had not meaningfully engaged in treatment or recommended services, and had not demonstrated reliable compliance or a workable care plan.

The least disruptive placement consistent with the child’s protection was continued temporary society care, with parental access at the society’s discretion subject to a minimum schedule.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion under s. 130 of the CYFSA for the production of third-party records relating to the parents and their five children.

The parents opposed the motion, arguing they had previously consented and the motion was premature.

The kin, who were added as parties to seek access to one child, brought a cross-motion seeking disclosure of the Society's entire file and the third-party records.

The court granted the Society's motion, finding the records relevant to the child protection concerns, with minor exceptions for counselling notes.

The court dismissed the kin's cross-motion, holding that their limited participatory rights only entitled them to records relevant to their claim for access to the one child.

The respondent mother, J.L., brought a motion for the presiding judge to recuse herself from hearing pending motions and the upcoming trial, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias due to the judge's prior involvement, evidentiary rulings, and perceived negative language.

The respondent father, A.C., supported the motion.

The Children's Aid Society, counsel for the child B.L., and the added kin parties (T.P. and M.C.) opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the recusal motion, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias, emphasizing judicial continuity in complex family law cases and the high threshold for recusal.

The appellant mother sought to appeal a temporary order adding the child's kin as parties to a child protection proceeding for the limited purpose of seeking access.

The Divisional Court determined the order was interlocutory, requiring leave to appeal.

Applying the test under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court denied leave, finding no conflicting decisions, no reason to doubt the correctness of the order, and no issue of general importance.

The respondent father brought a motion for increased in-person or virtual access with his child, who was in the temporary care of the maternal grandmother under the supervision of the Children's Aid Society.

The Society and the Office of the Children's Lawyer opposed the motion, citing the father's inappropriate behaviour during virtual visits and the child's stated preference to limit access.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the father's conduct was not conducive to building a positive relationship and that increasing access was not in the child's best interests at this time.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order for extended society care and no access for the parents of a ten-month-old child.

The mother struggled with long-standing opiate addiction and had recently relapsed, while the father was incarcerated and had no relationship with the child.

The court granted summary judgment for extended society care and no access to the father, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial on those issues.

However, the court found a genuine issue existed regarding the mother's access and ordered a mini-trial to determine that issue.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that three children were in need of protection and an order placing them in the care and custody of the mother, subject to a six-month supervision order.

The mother consented to the order.

The father opposed the motion, arguing against the protection finding and the condition that his access be supervised at the Society's discretion.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, noting overwhelming evidence of the father's controlling behaviour, parental conflict, and interference with medical care for the medically fragile children.

The court granted the summary judgment, finding the children in need of protection and ordering them to remain with the mother under supervision, with the father's access to be supervised at the Society's discretion.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection and an order granting joint custody to the father and maternal grandmother, with supervised access to the mother.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking the return of the child to her care.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding the need for protection, citing the mother's emotional dysregulation, conflictual relationships, and lack of cooperation with the applicant.

The court also found no genuine issue regarding the disposition, granting joint custody to the father and maternal grandmother with primary residence to the father.

However, the court found a genuine issue for trial regarding the extent and supervision of the mother's access, ordering a mini-trial to resolve that issue.

The plaintiff brought an action against his insurer and three individuals after his truck was allegedly stolen and he was subsequently shot in the leg during a confrontation.

The plaintiff, the insurer, and one of the individual defendants each brought motions for summary judgment on consent.

The court found that the plaintiff had fraudulently reported his truck stolen after storing it in a defendant's barn, in an attempt to collect insurance proceeds.

Consequently, the plaintiff's claims against the insurer for breach of contract and negligence were dismissed.

The plaintiff's claims for physical and psychological injuries against the individual defendants were not suitable for summary judgment due to a lack of proper expert medical evidence and were directed to proceed to trial.

Following a family law motion concerning a restraining order, temporary spousal support, disclosure, reimbursement of expenses, and a cross‑motion for occupation rent and credits, the court determined the issue of costs.

The moving party was successful on the majority of issues, although she did not obtain the restraining order sought and received less spousal support than requested.

The responding party obtained only a modest credit for occupation rent and support already paid.

Applying s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court held that costs should follow the event but that full indemnity costs were not appropriate.

The court awarded partial costs of $4,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements to the moving party.