Edward J. Mann

The Children's Aid Society of London and Middlesex brought a summary judgment motion seeking extended Society care for the child, C. The mother, A.S., and father, R.D., opposed, seeking custody or supervision orders.

The court considered extensive evidence, including a parenting capacity assessment, detailing the parents' substance abuse, unstable lifestyles, criminal records, and lack of insight.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding that neither parent nor the paternal grandmother could provide a safe and stable environment.

The motion was granted, placing the child in extended Society care, with no access ordered for the parents or paternal grandmother, as their relationships were not deemed beneficial or meaningful to the child.

The applicants brought a motion under s. 138 of the Child and Family Services Act to dispense with the respondent mother's consent to the adoption of the child, J. The child had been in the applicants' care since 10 months of age following apprehension by the Children's Aid Society due to parental drug addiction and neglect.

The biological father consented to the adoption.

The mother opposed, raising issues of access and alleging bribery, which she later withdrew.

The court granted the motion, finding it in the child's best interests, emphasizing the child's secure placement with the applicants and the speculative nature of a future relationship with the mother.

The court also clarified that access was not a justiciable issue in the adoption motion.

The applicant brought a motion seeking orders to prohibit the respondent's mother and friend from participating in access exchanges and from discussing adult issues with the children.

The respondent brought a cross-motion to vary interim access, shift driving responsibility, and obtain disclosure of information regarding the children, including designation as an alternative emergency contact, and for interim child support.

The court dismissed the applicant's prohibitive requests, granted the respondent's disclosure requests by consent, and varied the interim access schedule to increase the respondent's weekend time and introduce shared driving responsibilities, citing a material change in circumstances due to the applicant's relocation.

A mutual order was also issued prohibiting derogatory comments and discussing court proceedings with the children.

In a child protection proceeding, the society brought a motion under s. 74(3) of the Child and Family Services Act seeking production of a psychological assessment report prepared regarding a parent.

The parent had initially consented to the assessment but later withdrew consent for the society to obtain the report.

The court held that the statutory threshold for production—whether the record may be relevant to the proceeding—was not onerous and was met because the report was prepared specifically to assess the parent’s mental health and its impact on parenting.

The parent filed no evidence opposing production or supporting redactions.

The court ordered the assessor to produce the report and permitted disclosure to counsel, subject to statutory confidentiality restrictions.

The Children's Aid Society applied for a status review seeking Crown wardship of three children.

The parents had a history of domestic violence, substance abuse, and failure to maintain a safe and clean home environment.

Despite numerous interventions, support services, and strict safety plans, the parents repeatedly breached conditions, exposing the children to ongoing risk and neglect.

The court found that the parents were unable to change their behaviour and that returning the children to their care was impossible.

The court ordered that the children be made Crown wards with no access.

The Children's Aid Society applied for a status review seeking Crown wardship for two children who had been in continuous care for over two years.

The mother, who had a lengthy history of substance abuse, sought the return of the children under a supervision order, demonstrating significant and sustained recovery efforts.

The court found that the mother had achieved a sustained recovery with a strong relapse prevention plan, and that the risk of relapse was sufficiently minimal.

The court dismissed the Society's application for Crown wardship and ordered the children returned to the mother's care subject to a 12-month supervision order with strict conditions, including ongoing substance abuse treatment and testing.

Temporary care hearing under the Child and Family Services Act concerning two children previously found in need of protection.

The children had been apprehended after allegations of sexual impropriety against the father and a breach of a supervision order prohibiting his contact with the children.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children were at risk of harm but concluded the risk could be adequately managed through a supervision order.

Given the father’s relocation and the availability of supervision by the society, the court ordered that the children be returned to the mother’s care under society supervision with discretionary supervision of the father’s access.

The father brought a motion seeking unsupervised access and a return of the children to his care, while the mother sought continuation of supervised access and termination of telephone contact.

The court reviewed extensive materials and prior orders finding that the father had engaged in ongoing parental alienation and continued to raise adult issues with the children during access.

The court determined that the father had not demonstrated behavioural change or progress through counselling sufficient to justify unsupervised access.

Concerns also remained regarding the potential risk of international removal of the children.

The court ordered permanent supervised access and terminated regularly scheduled telephone access except in limited circumstances where weekly in‑person access does not occur.

The Children's Aid Society apprehended a newborn child with severe congenital heart defects and other medical issues.

The child required extraordinary care, constant monitoring, and multiple surgeries, which were provided by her foster parents.

The biological parents, who had significant cognitive, psychological, and financial limitations, sought the return of the child.

The court found the child in need of protection and ordered Crown wardship without access, concluding that the parents lacked the capacity to meet the child's exceptional medical and developmental needs, and that removing the child from her bonded foster family would be detrimental to her best interests.