David Walkling

Following the dismissal of the paternal grandmother's motion to consolidate her access application with the mother's motion to change the father's access, the mother sought costs.

The paternal grandmother argued against costs, citing her limited ability to pay and suggesting the mother's receipt of Legal Aid should reduce the award.

The court rejected these arguments, noting that Legal Aid is irrelevant to costs and that ability to pay does not immunize a party from costs for unnecessary procedural steps.

The court awarded the mother costs fixed at $4,700.

The paternal grandmother brought a motion to consolidate her application for access with the mother's motion to change the father's access.

The mother opposed the consolidation, arguing her motion was urgent and could be dealt with quickly, whereas the grandmother's application would require a lengthy trial.

The court dismissed the motion to consolidate, finding that the two proceedings were fundamentally different and that consolidating them would prejudice the mother by delaying the determination of urgent issues regarding the child's safety.

The applicant Society brought a motion under section 74 of the Child and Family Services Act for the production of the respondent mother's mental health records from various non-parties.

The mother consented to the records being produced to the Society but requested that they be vetted for relevance before being disclosed to the respondent grandmother and counsel for the children.

The court declined to vet the records, finding them clearly relevant to the child protection concerns, and ordered the Society to disclose the records to all parties, subject to conditions protecting the mother's privacy interests.

The applicant children’s aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a Crown wardship order without access in relation to three children.

The respondents opposed the motion, arguing the society’s affidavit evidence contained hearsay, relied on unidentified sources, and improperly incorporated medical opinions based on second-hand information.

The court reviewed the affidavits and medical reports and concluded that significant issues remained regarding admissibility, credibility, and the reliability of conclusions drawn from third‑party information.

The court also noted concerns that the mother’s proposed care plan may have been rejected without sufficient consideration.

The court held that the society had not established that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

In a status review proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, the court considered whether five children continued to require protection and what permanent placement would serve their best interests.

The evidence established a lengthy history of child protection involvement involving severe neglect, unsafe and unsanitary home conditions, inadequate supervision, educational neglect, exposure to sexualized behaviour, and parental instability.

Both parents demonstrated significant limitations in parenting capacity, insight, and ability to meet the children’s complex developmental and emotional needs despite extensive services.

The court concluded that the children remained in need of protection and that returning them to either parent would expose them to serious risks of harm.

Crown wardship was ordered with structured supervised access to both parents and supervised sibling access.