Deborah Bennett

The paternal grandmother brought a motion to be added as a party to a child protection proceeding involving her three grandchildren.

The children had recently been placed in her temporary care under a supervision order.

The mother opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that adding the grandmother as a party at this early stage would cause delay, unnecessarily complicate the proceedings, and escalate conflict, which was not in the children's best interests.

The court noted the grandmother could reapply if circumstances changed.

The children's aid society brought a motion to dismiss a mother's status review application on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction because the issue of access from the initial protection application was still pending following an appeal.

The court dismissed the society's motion, finding that status and access are distinct concepts under the legislation.

The court held that an outstanding access issue does not bar a parent from bringing a status review application regarding the children's placement, especially where significant changes in the proposed plans of care have occurred.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a 2012 final order to allow for equal, week-about parenting time for the parties' 14-year-old child.

The child expressed a consistent preference for a shared parenting arrangement to an assessor.

However, the court found significant ongoing conflict between the parents and instances where the applicant undermined the respondent's decision-making authority and parenting time.

Applying the best interests of the child test under section 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act, the court dismissed the motion to change the parenting schedule, finding the current arrangement primarily in the respondent's care remained in the child's best interests.

Child support was ordered on a set-off basis.

The applicant mother brought a motion to vary an interim parenting order, seeking supervised access for the respondent father and the appointment of the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The father brought a cross-motion for contempt, alleging the mother denied him access, and sought the sale of the family home.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the father's aggressive behaviour and substance abuse issues, which caused the children emotional harm.

The court varied the interim order to reduce the father's parenting time to daytime only, supervised by his parents.

The court dismissed the father's contempt motion, finding that while the mother technically breached the order, she did so to protect the children from family violence.

The court also ordered the sale of the family home, child support, and requested OCL involvement.

The applicant mother brought a motion for a temporary order regarding the children's schooling during the COVID-19 pandemic, seeking an order that they attend in person.

The respondent father opposed, arguing for online learning due to his alleged immunocompromised status.

The court found the father failed to provide medical evidence of an unacceptable risk to his health.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the court ordered the children to attend school in person when it resumes.

The court declined to order the use of Our Family Wizard but imposed communication rules.

In a high-conflict family law proceeding, the respondent mother brought a motion seeking an extension of time to respond to the applicant father's Request to Admit to avoid deemed admissions, and to strike two subsequent Requests to Admit.

The court found that the respondent had served a blanket refusal within the required 20 days, meaning no deemed admissions occurred, and thus no extension was necessary.

The court also struck the applicant's second and third Requests to Admit as improper and an abuse of process, noting they sought admissions about privileged settlement conference discussions.

The applicant mother brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support, and an advance on an equalization payment from the proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court imputed an income of $30,000 to the mother and ordered the father to pay net child support of $1,041 per month and spousal support of $1,172 per month.

The court declined to order an advance on the equalization payment beyond the amounts consented to by the father, as the father's pension had not yet been valued and funds needed to remain in trust to secure potential cost awards at trial.

In a child protection status review proceeding, the mother brought a motion for the temporary care and custody of her child.

The child had been placed in the temporary care of the maternal grandmother after the mother was arrested and detained on criminal charges.

The court determined that the mother had 'charge' of the child at the time of the society's intervention, meaning the child must be returned to her unless a material change in circumstances required a change in custody in the child's best interests.

The court found that while the mother's detention was a material change, returning the child to the mother's care was in the child's best interests, as the society had previously been satisfied with her parenting and the child exhibited a need for the emotional security she provided.

The mother's motion was allowed.

In a child protection application, the Children's Aid Society sought to admit out-of-court statements made by two children to child protection workers and a forensic psychiatrist.

The mother opposed the admission of some statements, arguing the children should testify.

Following a voir dire, the court found that the necessity requirement was met because testifying would likely cause the children stress and harm.

The court assessed the threshold reliability of the statements, admitting several for the children's state of mind and some for the truth of their contents, while excluding others that lacked sufficient detail or reliability.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment regarding a finding of need of protection, a 6-month supervision placement to the mother, and an order that the father's access be supervised at the CAS's discretion.

All issues except the father's access were settled.

The court found that the CAS established a prima facie case for continued supervised access due to the father's problematic behaviour, missed visits, and failure to complete an assessment.

The father failed to raise a genuine issue for trial.

Summary judgment was granted, ordering the father's access to be supervised at the discretion of the CAS.

The applicant children’s aid society brought a motion for summary judgment in a child protection proceeding concerning a young child.

The society sought a finding that the child was in need of protection due to risks of physical and emotional harm arising from the father’s long history of aggressive, threatening, and unstable behaviour, including threats against the mother, authorities, and others.

Expert psychiatric evidence raised concerns regarding personality disorders and the father’s inability to comply with authority or accept limits.

The court held that there was no genuine issue requiring trial and that summary judgment was appropriate under the Family Law Rules, applying the principles from Hryniak v. Mauldin.

The child was found to be in need of protection, sole custody was granted to the mother, and the father’s access was terminated.

The applicant children's aid society brought a motion for an interim supervision order placing two children in the care of the respondent mother, subject to conditions.

The mother opposed a condition requiring her to consent to psychological and educational assessments for her child, who exhibited severe language delays, and opposed releasing school records.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the child was at risk of emotional harm due to delayed development from the mother's failure to act.

The court granted the interim supervision order and found the assessment condition reasonable and appropriate, though it removed the requirement that the mother follow all recommendations before knowing what they are.