Diane B. Skrow

The Halton Children's Aid Society brought a contested motion seeking to place the child, S.A.R., in the temporary care and custody of the father, M.D.R., subject to supervision, and to supervise the mother's, M.A.R.'s, parenting time.

The Society alleged emotional harm and risk of emotional harm to the child due to the mother's persistent, unfounded allegations of sexual abuse against the father and her coaching of the child.

The court found that the Society met its onus, concluding that the child would likely suffer harm if returned to the mother's unsupervised care, citing the mother's repeated unverified allegations, coaching, mental health issues, and the child's therapist's concerns.

The motion was granted, placing the child with the father and ordering supervised access for the mother.

A mother brought an urgent motion during the COVID-19 pandemic seeking to suspend the father's in-person access with the children due to health and safety concerns.

The mother reported that she and the children exhibited COVID-19 symptoms, and the father's parents had recently returned from international travel.

The court found that most of the mother's requests were not urgent but determined that temporary suspension of in-person access was warranted based on the children's health circumstances and the father's failure to provide information regarding COVID-19 safety measures.

The court ordered that in-person access be suspended temporarily and replaced with virtual contact via Skype, FaceTime, and telephone, pending further determination of urgency.

This is a child protection trial involving two adolescent children who were found to be in need of protection due to ongoing domestic violence, physical abuse, emotional abuse, and controlling behaviour by the father towards both the mother and children.

The court found that the children suffered serious emotional harm including anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder.

The mother was granted sole custody of the children.

The father was denied access to the children, and a restraining order was imposed prohibiting him from contacting or coming within 500 metres of the mother and children.

The court rejected the father's request for joint custody and reunification efforts, finding that the children's clearly expressed wishes not to have contact with their father should be respected, and that the father had demonstrated no insight into the harm he caused and remained unwilling to engage appropriately with professionals.

The mother brought a motion to change her existing Monday access visits to include overnight access.

The Children's Aid Society and the father consented to the general outline of expanded access but proposed 24 conditions.

The court granted the mother's motion to change, permitting unsupervised overnight access visits each Monday from 3:20 p.m. until Tuesday at 9:00 a.m., subject to comprehensive terms and conditions addressing home maintenance, Society supervision, child safety, parental conduct, and restrictions on third-party involvement.

The court dismissed one proposed condition regarding evidence of stability without prejudice.

A child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act in which the Halton Children's Aid Society sought a finding that a child was in need of protection under sections 37(2)(f) and (g) due to emotional harm caused by parental conflict, particularly the mother's unfounded allegations of abuse against the father.

The Society sought placement of the child in the father's custody with supervised access for the mother.

The mother opposed the application and sought dismissal or, alternatively, joint and equally shared custody.

The court found the child was in need of protection, placed the child in the father's exclusive care and custody, and ordered supervised access for the mother under a one-year supervision order.

In a status review application under the Child and Family Services Act, the court determined that two children continue to be in need of protection and made an order for crown wardship with permanent placement in a kinship foster home with the maternal aunt and uncle.

The mother sought return of the children to her care subject to society supervision, while the father sought return to his sole custody without supervision.

The court found that neither parent could adequately care for the children due to the mother's multiple health conditions and parenting deficits, and the father's refusal to acknowledge substance abuse issues, violence, and his complete lack of contact with the children.

The court approved the society's plan for crown wardship with the children remaining in the stable kinship placement where they were thriving, while maintaining supervised access with the mother and discretionary supervised access with the father.

A motion brought by the Children's Aid Society to suspend direct access between a seven-year-old child in care and his mother, and to restrict access to written communication only.

The child had experienced significant trauma from domestic violence and parental substance abuse.

Following apprehension, the child exhibited severe behavioral and emotional dysregulation, with escalations occurring before and after access visits with his mother.

The court found that the child's circumstances had changed dramatically since the initial temporary access order, and that direct access was contributing to his crisis.

The motion was granted, suspending direct access and permitting only written correspondence screened by the society.

A 13-year-old child commenced a child welfare proceeding against her parents and the local children's aid society, seeking a finding that she and her siblings were in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act.

The father moved to dismiss the application as an abuse of process and for failure to raise a genuine issue for trial.

The court found that the child had commenced the proceeding under the influence of her mother as a tactical measure to interfere with concurrent Superior Court custody proceedings.

The court dismissed the application, finding it was an abuse of process and raised no genuine issue for trial.

A mother sought costs against a Children's Aid Society following the withdrawal of a child protection application.

The Society had commenced proceedings seeking supervision of the child, who had Crohn's disease, after the mother sought alternative naturopathic treatment and refused to cooperate with the Society's investigation.

The court dismissed the costs motion, finding that while the mother was a strong advocate for her child, the Society acted reasonably in investigating concerns raised by medical professionals and in seeking a minimally intrusive court order to compel cooperation.

The Society reassessed its position once information was provided and withdrew the application at the third court appearance.

A child protection application brought by the Children's Aid Society seeking temporary care and custody of two young children (ages 3 and 4) based on allegations of emotional harm caused by the mother's approach to the older child's gender expression.

The mother had begun socially transitioning the child to a female identity based on the child's expressed gender variant preferences.

The father opposed the placement and alleged the mother was forcing the child to be a girl against his wishes.

The court found that while there was a risk of emotional harm, it was caused by parental conflict rather than either parent's conduct alone.

The court determined the children could be adequately protected under a supervision order in the mother's care and returned the children to both parents under the custody and access regime that existed prior to intervention, subject to strict supervision and compliance with expert recommendations.

A child protection agency sought an order dispensing with service of child protection documents on the respondent father, arguing that service would place the child and mother at grave risk of harm.

The father had a history of serious violence, including aggravated assault of a child resulting in brain and abdominal injuries, and had been incarcerated.

The court rejected the application to dispense with service, finding that the Family Law Rules do not permit dispensing with service based on best interests of the child alone.

However, the court ordered that service proceed with protective safeguards, including redaction of identifying information about the mother and child, restriction of the father's access to the court file, and a separate hearing date without the mother and child present.

This is a temporary care and custody motion under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Halton Children's Aid Society sought an order that a 13-year-old child remain in the temporary care and custody of her maternal grandmother, subject to supervision and conditions prohibiting the maternal grandfather from being left alone with the child and from sleeping in the family residence at night.

The grandfather faced criminal charges for historical sexual offenses involving multiple alleged victims.

The grandparents sought to have the child remain in their joint care without supervision or with minimal conditions.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the child was at risk of sexual abuse by the grandfather based on credible hearsay evidence of multiple allegations, the pattern of alleged abuse, and the child's age falling within the grandfather's apparent victim profile.

The court rejected a proposed bedroom lock condition as placing inappropriate responsibility on the child and granted the Society's motion, ordering the child to remain in the grandmother's temporary care and custody subject to supervision and the requested conditions.

This is a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act involving a crown wardship application.

The respondent father, who is self-represented and receiving Ontario Disability Support Program benefits, sought a legal aid certificate to retain counsel for trial.

Legal Aid Ontario refused to issue a certificate.

The court held that the father has a constitutional right to counsel under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that all four criteria from New Brunswick v. J.G. are satisfied.

The court adjourned the hearing to allow Legal Aid Ontario and the Attorney General to make submissions on the court's motion to appoint publicly funded counsel.

A motion by a third party seeking intervenor status, amicus curiae status, or party status in a child protection proceeding.

The movant, a religious leader and founder of a public accountability organization, sought to intervene on behalf of the respondent mother.

The court dismissed the motion on multiple grounds, including lack of jurisdiction of the Ontario Court of Justice to grant amicus curiae status to public interest groups, failure to meet the criteria for intervention, and concerns about delay and prejudice to the child.

A temporary care and custody motion under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act concerning a child with significant medical and developmental needs.

The child was apprehended from the mother's care due to substance abuse and neglect.

The maternal grandmother sought placement of the child in her care, subject to society supervision, or alternatively, expanded unsupervised access.

The court found that the society met its onus to establish that the child's best interests required remaining in the care and custody of the society.

The court dismissed the maternal grandmother's application, finding concerns regarding her ability to follow court orders and society directions, protect the child from the mother, and meet the child's complex medical and developmental needs.

A child protection summary judgment motion wherein the Children's Aid Society sought to place a child in the custody of the father pursuant to section 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, with access to the mother in the discretion of the father.

The child had been a Crown ward since 2008 following a status review trial.

The father had demonstrated stability and cooperation with the Society, while the mother had failed to address serious mental health issues and remained homeless.

The court granted the motion, finding no genuine issue for trial and that the protection concerns regarding the mother that existed in 2008 continued to exist and had worsened.

This is an openness application brought by counsel on behalf of a 14-year-old child in Crown wardship, seeking to establish ongoing contact with both biological parents following the child's proposed adoption by a mentor family.

The child had been in continuous care of the Children's Aid Society since 2008 and was made a Crown ward in 2010.

The child expressed a desire to be adopted by her mentor family while maintaining contact with her parents.

The mother opposed the adoption and sought to have the child returned to her care, but the Court of Appeal upheld the decision that the child's best interests required the adoption to proceed.

The court approved an openness order permitting supervised direct contact and indirect contact between the child and her biological parents, with specific arrangements to be determined by the child and her adoptive parents.

A child protection application brought by the Children's Aid Society seeking a finding that two children were in need of protection under section 37(2)(b)(i) of the Child and Family Services Act due to risk of physical harm.

The mother consented to the finding through an agreed statement of facts.

The father contested the application.

The court found overwhelming evidence that the children were at risk of physical harm while in the father's care, including: the father's misuse and abuse of prescription medications (particularly oxycodone), his involvement in a dangerous driving incident while impaired by drugs with the children in the vehicle, his pattern of "doctor shopping" to obtain controlled substances, and his physical and verbal abuse of the mother in the presence of the children.

The court made a finding that the children were in need of protection and ordered a parenting capacity assessment to proceed.

The respondent father sought to extend the time to serve and file an Application for an Openness Order following receipt of a Notice of Intention to Place a Child for Adoption and Notice of Termination of Access.

The father was served on December 11, 2012, with a 30-day deadline to file.

He attended court on January 10, 2013, still within the deadline, but did not file the application.

He subsequently filed a Form 14B motion on February 10, 2013, requesting an extension.

The court found it had no jurisdiction to extend the prescribed 30-day time limit under the Family Law Rules and dismissed the motion.

The court noted that the father received inadequate legal advice from duty counsel at the Family Law Information Centre and should have been directed to immediately serve and file the application on January 10, 2013.

A status review application under the Child and Family Services Act concerning a child (M.) who had been in the care of the Children's Aid Society for 38 months following apprehension due to severe physical abuse of his half-sister (F.).

The mother was criminally convicted of assault causing bodily harm and uttering threats.

The parents sought return of M. to their joint care under supervision; the society sought a crown wardship order without access to facilitate adoption by M.'s paternal great aunt and uncle, with whom he had been placed since age two.

The court found M. continued to be in need of protection, rejected the parents' denial of responsibility for F.'s injuries, and determined that crown wardship without access was in M.'s best interests given his secure attachment to his current caregivers, the parents' lack of insight and cooperation, and the risk of harm if returned to parental care.