C. Severn

The Dnaagdawenmag Binnoojiiyag Child and Family Services (DBCFS), the Respondent Mother, and the Respondent Father each brought motions to vary a temporary supervision order concerning the child, L.T.C., following the Mother's discharge from a mothering house due to dishonesty and a positive drug test.

The court found a material change in circumstances.

While the Agency and Mother sought to continue the Mother's primary care under supervision, the Father sought equal shared care.

The court, applying the legal tests for varying temporary placement orders, found the Father's plan for shared care to be more comprehensive and in the child's best interests, providing greater accountability for both parents and opportunities for the Agency to assess parenting capacity.

The court ordered a week-about shared care arrangement under the supervision of the Agency and both maternal and paternal grandmothers.

The Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that two children were in need of protection and an order placing them in the deemed custody of their maternal aunt.

The father opposed the motion, seeking a finding under a different subsection and an order placing the children in foster care.

The court granted the Society's motion, finding the children in need of protection due to the father's substance abuse, domestic violence, and failure to protect them from sexual abuse.

The court gave significant weight to the children's strong and consistent wishes to remain with their aunt and ordered deemed custody to her, with access to the father and paternal grandparents subject to the children's wishes.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a final order regarding child custody, access, and support.

The respondent father sought shared custody and the rescission of child support arrears.

The court found the father lacked the personality and stability required for shared custody, noting his history of domestic violence, substance abuse, and failure to pay child support.

The court ordered primary residence to remain with the mother, set a specific alternate weekend access schedule for the father, and refused to rescind the child support arrears, though it reduced them slightly due to a past injury.

The Society brought a motion for a temporary care order to place the child in the care of the paternal grandmother, with supervised access for the parents.

The parents sought the return of the child to their care subject to supervision.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the child would suffer harm if returned to the parents due to ongoing conflict and volatility.

The court ordered the child to remain in the temporary care of the paternal grandmother but directed the Society to immediately expand the parents' supervised access, with a structured plan to progress to unsupervised access if conditions were met.

The Applicant sought an order to travel to Thailand with the child for three weeks during the school year.

The Respondent opposed, citing risks of abduction, dangers in Thailand, and academic detriment to the child.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while many of the Respondent's concerns were speculative, the child's significant academic struggles made missing three weeks of school not in her best interests.

The court emphasized the importance of school attendance, especially for a struggling student.

The applicant mother was found in contempt for breaching an access order and failing to provide notice of a school change.

This endorsement addresses the penalty and compliance.

The court found the mother had not purged her contempt and was actively undermining the child's relationship with the father through various means, including influencing the child and involving an off-duty police officer friend to thwart access.

The court ordered reconciliation counseling, paid by the mother, and a modified access schedule with police enforcement to re-establish the father's relationship with the child.

The respondent mother brought a contempt motion alleging the applicant father repeatedly breached a consent access order by refusing to deliver the parties’ children for scheduled parenting exchanges.

The father admitted he knew the order but claimed he would not force the child to attend visits because the child expressed reluctance and alleged safety concerns about the mother’s partner.

Child protection authorities had investigated and found no basis for the father’s allegations.

The court found the father intentionally disobeyed a clear order and that any reluctance expressed by the child resulted from the father’s coaching or influence.

Applying the civil contempt test, the court held the breach was wilful and proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and adjourned the matter for a separate penalty hearing.

In a child protection proceeding, the child’s maternal aunt brought a motion seeking to be added as a party and requesting the appointment of legal counsel for the child pursuant to s. 38 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The court held that the aunt was not a necessary party under the Family Law Rules and that her proposed parenting plan could be advanced through the mother without granting her party status.

The court emphasized that adding additional parties may cause unnecessary delay and is not generally contemplated under s. 39 of the Act.

However, the court found that legal representation for the child was desirable given the presence of competing parenting plans and the importance of ensuring that the child’s views and interests were adequately presented.

The motion to add the aunt as a party was dismissed, but the request for legal representation for the child was granted.

Following a family law motion to change involving child support and section 7 expenses, both parties sought costs after a multi‑day hearing and related proceedings.

The court considered the principles in Rules 18 and 24 of the Family Law Rules, including the presumption that the successful party is entitled to costs and the potential effect of offers to settle.

The court found that neither party achieved a result as good as or better than their respective offers.

It further concluded that the applicant pursued unreasonable positions regarding income and extensive section 7 expenses, while the respondent’s settlement offer lacked clarity and was not capable of acceptance.

Finding divided success and unreasonable litigation conduct on both sides, the court exercised its discretion to deny costs to either party.