Cynthia Karen Lauer

The paternal grandmother sought to be added as a party to child protection proceedings brought by the Children's Aid Society.

The mother and stepfather opposed the motion.

The court applied the test from Children's Aid Society of London and Middlesex v. S.H., S.W. and D.R. and granted the motion, finding that adding the grandmother as a party served the child's best interests, would not unduly delay proceedings, was necessary to determine the issues, and that the grandmother was capable of putting forward a viable plan.

The grandmother was granted leave to file her answer and plan of care and to bring a motion for access.

The Children's Aid Society sought a temporary supervision order for a child with high-functioning autism who remained in the care of his mother pending a full protection hearing.

The society alleged the child was at risk of physical and emotional harm based on reports of inappropriate physical discipline, the mother's aggressive and confrontational behaviour toward service providers, her refusal to cooperate with the society, and her lack of understanding of the child's special needs.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the child was at risk and granted a temporary supervision order with specific terms and conditions, including prohibitions on physical discipline and requirements that the mother sign consents for information sharing with service providers.

In a family law motion concerning custody and relocation, the responding party sought primary residence of the children, restrictions on relocation, counselling orders, and a reduction in child support.

The moving party attempted to rely on a “reporting letter” authored by a parenting coordinator as evidence.

The court ruled the document inadmissible because it did not comply with the requirements for expert reports under the Family Law Rules, relied extensively on hearsay, and contained opinions outside the coordinator’s qualifications, including comments on mental health.

The court also held that parenting coordinators should not perform investigative or evidentiary roles and should limit their involvement to facilitating implementation of an existing parenting plan.

Without the report, the evidence did not support the father’s motion and the relocation was permitted.