Cameron Croxall

The respondent father brought a motion seeking expanded interim parenting time with the parties' 3.5-year-old child and the use of Our Family Wizard for communications.

The mother agreed to the communication app but disputed the father's request for unsupervised parenting time, proposing instead that visits be supervised by the paternal grandmother.

The court found that it was in the child's best interests to move the father's parenting time outside of the supervised exchange centre to allow for a more natural relationship to develop.

The court ordered unsupervised weekly visits, initially limited to two hours and then expanding to three hours, with exchanges to occur at the exchange centre.

The applicant Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that two young children were in need of protection and an order for Crown wardship without access.

The respondent parents opposed the motion, with the mother seeking the return of the children under a supervision order and the father alleging the Society failed to properly explore a kin placement.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, noting the parents' failure to protect the children from neglect and domestic violence, the mother's failure to exercise reasonable access, and the father's lack of involvement.

The court granted the motion, finding the children in need of protection and ordering Crown wardship without access.

The Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order for Crown wardship without access for six children.

The children had been apprehended multiple times due to the mother's historic drug use, exposure to domestic violence, and deplorable housing conditions.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing she had a new stable relationship and a supervisory job.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the mother failed to demonstrate she had addressed the issues that led to the children's apprehension.

The court granted summary judgment, making all six children Crown wards without access to facilitate adoption.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking Crown wardship of four children who had been in care for over two years.

The mother and her common-law partner opposed the motion, arguing that they had made progress and could call witnesses to support their case.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a triable issue existed and emphasizing the need for caution before making a Crown wardship order.