Chris Etherden

The Children's Aid Society of the Niagara Region brought a motion to place a First Nations child in foster care, while the mother brought a cross-motion to have the child returned to her under supervision.

The court considered the child's history, recent concerns including unexplained bruises, alcohol/cannabis use, and unauthorized caregivers, alongside the principles of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 and An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Metis Children.

Giving serious weight to the First Nation's judgment, the court found the child could be adequately protected under the mother's supervision with new conditions, dismissing the Society's motion and granting the mother's.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a final order to place a five-year-old child in extended society care without access for the purpose of adoption.

The child had been in care for over two and a half years due to the parents' substance abuse issues.

Despite numerous opportunities and referrals, neither parent successfully completed relapse prevention or treatment programs.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial, and ordered the child placed in extended care with no access to the parents, concluding it was in the child's best interests.

The Children's Aid Society of the Niagara Region sought to continue a temporary care and custody order for the child L.H. due to ongoing concerns regarding parental drug abuse, the mother's untreated mental health issues, and inadequate care.

The respondent parents opposed this, requesting the child be placed in the father's care subject to Society supervision.

The court found compelling evidence of drug abuse by both parents, the father's interference with the mother's mental health treatment, and a lack of full disclosure by the parents regarding their living situation.

Applying the two-part test under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, the court concluded that the child was at risk of harm and could not be adequately protected by a supervision order.

The Society's motion was granted, continuing the temporary care and custody order.

The applicant father and respondent mother separated in September 2013 and have two young children.

The father applied for sole custody, equal time-sharing, and child support.

The mother sought sole custody, primary residence, and child support.

The court found a high level of conflict between the parties, primarily initiated by the father, making joint custody inappropriate.

The mother was granted sole custody and primary residence, as she had been the primary caregiver and demonstrated excellent parenting.

The father was granted gradually increasing access, progressing to alternate weekends and one overnight during the week.

The court imputed income to the father, who was receiving WSIB benefits and rental income, finding his claimed rental expenses unreasonable.

The father was ordered to pay child support based on an imputed annual income of approximately $31,102.

In a child protection status review proceeding, the child protection agency brought a summary judgment motion seeking Crown wardship without access for a young child.

The evidentiary record included extensive affidavits detailing longstanding concerns involving domestic violence, substance abuse, mental health issues, unstable housing, and repeated non‑compliance with supervision orders.

The responding parents opposed the motion and sought either a trial, a return of the child to parental care under supervision, or placement with an alternative kin caregiver.

The court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, finding the parents’ materials largely consisted of general denials and failed to address overwhelming evidence of risk and longstanding patterns of harmful conduct.

Summary judgment was granted, the child was made a Crown ward, and access was denied because the parents failed to establish that post‑wardship access would be beneficial and meaningful to the child or would not impair adoption prospects.