Christopher Spear

The respondent mother (RM) brought a motion seeking the return of her child (M.R.) to her temporary care and custody or expanded access.

The Children's Aid Society (CAS) opposed, citing COVID-19 restrictions and the mother's current parenting capacity.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on access and the impending closure of M.R.'s foster home.

Considering M.R.'s best interests, including his consistent desire to return to his mother, the CAS's delays in providing mandated services, and the instability of M.R.'s placements, the court ordered M.R.'s reintegration into his mother's full-time care by July 31, 2020, under a supervision order, with virtual access in the interim.

This appeal concerns a mother's request for access to three of her six children in extended care following their apprehension by the Children's Aid Society in 2015.

The motion judge granted Crown wardship without access.

The Divisional Court affirmed the decision but applied the old Child and Family Services Act rather than the new Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the transitional provisions of the new Act applied, the record was insufficient to satisfy the expanded access test, the children's Indigenous heritage was not properly considered, and the approach to summary judgment in child protection matters was misapplied.

The matter was remitted to Superior Court for determination under the new legislation.

The moving party mother brought a motion for increased, overnight access to her daughter and for interim spousal support.

The responding party father opposed overnight access, citing concerns about the mother's Huntington's Disease and depression, and argued income should be imputed to her as she was intentionally unemployed.

The court granted the mother supervised overnight access, finding no evidence of risk to the child.

The court declined to impute income to the mother, finding she was not intentionally unemployed given her pending disability appeals, and ordered the father to pay mid-range spousal support of $601 per month.

The Kawartha-Haliburton Children's Aid Society sought Crown Wardship for three children due to ongoing child protection concerns, including exposure to domestic violence, parental substance abuse, and chaotic lifestyles.

The two older children had significant special needs requiring intensive therapy.

The mother sought the return of the children, while the fathers sought access or placement with extended family.

The court found all three children in need of protection and concluded that none of the parents' plans could provide the necessary stability and permanency.

The court ordered Crown Wardship for all three children.

The court denied the parents' requests for access, finding that the relationships were not beneficial and meaningful to the children and that access would impair their future opportunities for adoption.

The orders for the two older boys were silent as to access to allow for clinically managed contact if recommended by their therapists, while the order for the youngest child specified no access.