Dominique Durieux Smith

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a motion for interim care and custody of baby R. under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, citing concerns about the parents' mental/emotional health, domestic conflict, and non-cooperation.

The parents, K.T. and E.M., opposed the motion, arguing they had made significant progress and that an interim supervision order would adequately protect the child.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe there was a risk of emotional harm to R. if returned without conditions, but ultimately determined that an Interim Supervision Order with detailed terms and conditions, including cooperation with external service providers and the Society, would adequately mitigate the risk.

The motion for Society care was dismissed, and the child was returned to the parents' care under supervision.

This endorsement clarifies and replaces the terms of a supervision order and access conditions previously issued in a child protection matter.

The court ordered the Children's Aid Society to devise a gradual reintegration schedule for the children M and C to return to the mother's full-time care by August 14, 2017.

It also set out detailed conditions for the mother's twelve-month supervision order, including no contact with the father or other specified individuals, cooperation with the Society, drug testing, and participation in recommended programs.

For the father, limited supervised access of one hour every two weeks was granted, subject to specific conditions including cooperation with the Society and no unsupervised contact with the children.

A respondent in a child protection trial brought a motion for the judge to recuse himself and declare a mistrial, alleging reasonable apprehension of bias.

The allegation stemmed from the judge contemplating, and seeking submissions on, whether to summon additional witnesses under s. 49 of the Child and Family Services Act (CFSA) to address conflicting evidence, a possibility the judge later decided against.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a reasonable, informed person would not conclude that the judge would not decide the case fairly.

The decision emphasized the high threshold for proving bias, the presumption of judicial impartiality, and the unique procedural flexibilities afforded to courts in child protection proceedings under the CFSA and Family Law Rules.

On a temporary care and custody motion under s. 51 of the Child and Family Services Act, the child protection agency sought an order placing a child in the temporary care and custody of the mother under the Society’s supervision with multiple conditions.

The child had previously been apprehended due to domestic violence exposure, concerns about the condition of the home, and questions regarding the mother’s mental health and cooperation with the Society.

The father opposed the motion and sought to maintain Society care while pursuing access.

The court applied the statutory test under s. 51(3) and emphasized the CFSA’s paramount objective of promoting the best interests, protection, and well-being of children while favouring the least disruptive course consistent with safety.

Finding that the child could be adequately protected through a supervision order and that the mother had taken meaningful steps to address protection concerns, the court ordered the child returned to the mother’s care subject to extensive conditions.

Child protection disposition following an amended status review under the Child and Family Services Act concerning two young children with significant behavioural and developmental challenges.

The applicant society sought Crown wardship without access for the purpose of adoption and a restraining order against the father.

Both parents opposed the application and proposed separate plans of care, including supervision orders and kinship placement with maternal grandparents.

The court found the children continued to be in need of protection and that neither parent’s plan provided sufficient stability, parenting capacity, or ability to work cooperatively with required support services.

Crown wardship for the purpose of adoption was ordered and a restraining order was issued restricting the father’s contact with the society, foster parents, and future adoptive parents.

In a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, all parties agreed the children remained in need of protection due to parental incapacity and sought a permanent care plan under s. 57.1.

Competing plans proposed placement with maternal grandparents, with the paternal grandmother, or maintenance of split placements.

After reviewing extensive evidence on caregiving capacity, family conflict, cultural and religious issues, and the children’s best interests, the court ordered shared legal custody between the maternal grandparents and the paternal grandmother on an alternating weekly schedule.

The court also set terms for religious holidays, birthday exchanges, and transition arrangements.