Christopher Patrick Fitzgerald

This is a child protection motion under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act involving four children and two separate applications.

Application No. 1 concerns three non-Indigenous boys (G., P., and C.) with parents A.W. and M.P. who had a joint custody order.

Application No. 2 concerns an infant (B.) with mother A.W. and father J.S., a member of Batchewana First Nation.

The society sought temporary care and custody of all children.

The court found reasonable grounds for risk of harm based on domestic violence, excessive alcohol consumption, and failure to comply with safety agreements involving J.S. However, the court declined to grant full temporary care and custody to the father for the three boys, instead maintaining the existing joint custody arrangement with conditions on the mother's care.

For the infant B., the court placed her with her maternal grandmother pending consent, with supervised paternal access for J.S.

The respondent brought a motion seeking an order to deem 100% of a previous costs award, arising from an eight-day trial, as a debt related to child support, thereby making it non-dischargeable in the applicant's bankruptcy under section 178(1)(c) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The applicant contended that the costs primarily stemmed from custody and access issues and should be discharged.

The court, relying on its independent recollection of the original trial, found that the child support issue was inextricably linked to the shared custody claim.

Consequently, the court apportioned 50% of the original costs award to child support, declaring that portion to be a non-dischargeable debt.

This decision addresses the respondent's request for costs following a successful access motion.

The respondent had made a reasonable offer to settle that was not accepted by the applicant, and the final order was as favourable as or more favourable than the offer.

Despite the applicant's genuine fears regarding the child's best interests, the court found the respondent was presumptively entitled to costs under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The court exercised its discretion to award partial indemnity costs of $7,000.00 to the respondent, balancing the parties' conduct and the reasonableness of the respondent's offer.

The Children's Aid Society of Algoma brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that two children were in need of protection under section 37(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Child and Family Services Act, and an order that no further child protection orders be made.

The mother opposed the finding, contending the Society should never have been involved.

The court found that while the children were at risk of physical harm due to a culmination of factors including the mother's physical health issues, mental health decline, and custody and access conflicts between the parents, there was no pattern of neglect.

The court granted the motion, finding the children in need of protection under section 37(2)(b)(i) only, and ordered that no further child protection orders be necessary.