Cassandra Baars

Following a motion where the court ordered a child returned to Ontario after the father's unauthorized relocation to New Brunswick, the kin caregiver sought costs against the father and the Children's Aid Society.

The court found the father's conduct unreasonable and the Society's failure to properly assess the relocation plan and file required evidence irresponsible.

The court ordered the father and the Society to each pay $5,000 in costs, and held them jointly and severally liable for $2,349.15 in travel costs incurred by the kin caregiver to retrieve the child.

This Status Review proceeding involved a motion by the Durham Children's Aid Society and the father (S.M.) to permit the father to relocate with his 3-year-old child (A.M.) from Ontario to New Brunswick.

The kin caregiver (C.C.) opposed the relocation and sought temporary care and custody of A.M. in Ontario.

The court found the father's unilateral departure from Ontario with the child improper and questioned his credibility, compliance with orders, and willingness to facilitate the child's relationship with the kin caregiver, especially in light of an outstanding criminal warrant for an alleged assault in A.M.'s presence.

The court also noted the Society's incomplete assessment and lack of a detailed interjurisdictional access plan.

Applying the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (CYFSA) and relocation principles, the court dismissed the Society's and father's motions, ordering A.M. to remain in C.C.'s temporary care and custody in Ontario.

The Children's Aid Society initiated child protection proceedings concerning S.D. The paternal great-grandmother, A.D., moved to be added as a party to the proceedings.

The maternal grandmother, L.P., opposed the motion, arguing it would cause delay and that A.D. was not a primary caregiver.

The Society did not oppose A.D.'s motion.

The court found it was in the child's best interests to add A.D. as a party, noting her significant and consistent caregiving role, and that the existing order for L.P. to make "reasonable access arrangements with A.D." constituted a right of access, making A.D. a "parent" under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

Even if not a statutory parent, the court would exercise its discretion to add A.D. as a party.

The motion was granted.

The Durham Children’s Aid Society initiated a child protection proceeding concerning A.M., whose parents struggled with drug addiction.

The child had been informally cared for by C.C., a maternal cousin, for several months.

The Society and C.C. brought motions regarding C.C.'s party status and access to the child, while the parents sought reunification.

The court addressed whether C.C. qualified as a statutory party or a party with "care and control" under the Family Law Rules, ultimately deciding to add C.C. as a party under Rule 7(5) due to her significant role in the child's life and her legal interest in seeking access.

The court also determined a temporary access schedule for C.C. with the child, balancing the child's best interests with the parents' reunification efforts, which remained tentative.