Deborah Elizabeth Bennett

The Children's Aid Society sought a temporary order for the return of three children to their mother's care, subject to supervision and conditions, after apprehending them due to deplorable living conditions and neglect.

The mother supported this, while the fathers of two children opposed, seeking continued placement with them or foster care.

The court found a significant risk of harm but determined that the proposed supervision order, with amendments including the permanent removal of pets and mandatory program completion, was sufficient to mitigate the risk, emphasizing the least intrusive course of action.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa sought summary judgment for Crown wardship of the child K.T.B. with no access for the natural parents, J.T. (mother) and J.B. (father).

The motion was brought under Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules and sections 1, 37, and 57 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The court found that the Society met its evidentiary burden, and the parents failed to present a genuine issue for trial, demonstrating a lack of insight into the child's best interests, inconsistent access, and failure to address domestic violence and mental health issues.

The court granted Crown wardship without access, emphasizing the child's need for stability and permanence.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa sought a final order of Crown wardship for adoption for the child B. The respondent mother and father opposed, proposing the child be returned to the mother under a supervision order.

The court found the father had a history of domestic violence, lacked insight, and showed minimal commitment to addressing issues or exercising access.

The mother consistently prioritized her relationship with the father over the child's safety, lied to the Society, and failed to implement recommended therapies or parenting courses.

Considering the child's best interests and the parents' lack of commitment to rehabilitation, the court granted Crown wardship for adoption to the paternal uncle and his partner, with structured access for both parents.

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.

In a child protection motion under the Child and Family Services Act, the society sought orders restraining the father from contacting the mother and suspending his access to the child due to domestic violence, substance abuse concerns, and threatening conduct.

Evidence included numerous police incidents involving domestic violence and a forensic psychiatric assessment indicating a high risk of future spousal assault.

The mother had separated from the father and relocated to an undisclosed location for safety.

The court held that the child’s best interests required placement with the mother under the society’s supervision and suspension of the father’s access until specified conditions were met.

The decision emphasized the relevance of domestic violence and parental conduct toward a partner when assessing child protection risks and access.