Eric D. McCooeye

A temporary care and custody motion under the Child and Family Services Act concerning two children (ages 11 and 9) apprehended from their mother's care due to concerns regarding the mother's mental health crisis, inadequate supervision, poor home conditions, and insufficient food.

The mother was hospitalized involuntarily for exhibiting paranoid and delusional behavior.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children would suffer harm if returned to either parent's immediate care.

The court ordered the children remain in society care with graduated access to the mother, with an expectation of return to maternal care by September 3, 2015, contingent upon the mother's continued mental health stability and compliance with conditions.

The father's role remained uncertain pending further investigation.

Following the tragic death of the children's mother, the maternal aunt and the biological father brought competing claims for interim custody.

The children had been residing with the aunt and attending school in her district prior to the mother's death.

The court found conflicting evidence regarding the father's prior involvement and noted the children's special needs required stability.

The court ordered interim joint custody, with the children residing with the aunt during the week to maintain their school placement, and with the father on weekends, pending a full trial.

The Children's Aid Society of Algoma brought a child protection application seeking temporary care and custody of a 12-year-old child (K.A.) with placement with the child's paternal grandparents, subject to a supervision order.

The mother opposed the application and sought return of the child to her care.

The court found that the society met the two-part test under section 51(3) of the Child and Family Services Act, establishing reasonable grounds to believe the child was likely to suffer harm if returned to the mother's care and that the child could not be adequately protected by a non-removal order.

The court granted temporary care and custody to the paternal grandparents.

The mother brought a motion seeking recusal of the trial judge on grounds of perceived bias.

The judge had previously presided over a summary judgment motion where she determined the children were in need of protection and could not be placed in the mother's full-time care and custody.

The mother argued that the judge's prior findings and exposure to inadmissible evidence would cloud her judgment on the remaining issue of access.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no cogent evidence of actual bias or reasonable apprehension of bias.

The judge emphasized that findings regarding full-time parenting capacity were distinct from determinations regarding access rights.

The applicant father sought joint custody and unsupervised access to his child born in 2005.

The respondent mother opposed the claim and sought sole custody.

Following allegations of sexual abuse made by the child in August 2010 (which were not substantiated by police or Children's Aid Society), the mother sought to restrict access to supervised visits.

The court found that the allegations did not meet the threshold of reliability and that the father's credibility was compromised by inconsistent contact with the child, minimization of serious family issues, and involvement with the Children's Aid Society regarding physical discipline concerns.

The court ordered continued supervised access rather than the unsupervised access sought by the father.

The accused was charged with assault with a weapon under section 267(a) of the Criminal Code for spraying the complainant in the face with bear spray.

The accused did not deny the spraying but argued the court should reject the complainant's evidence and find a reasonable doubt.

The court found the essential elements of the offence were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

While there were weaknesses in the complainant's evidence, they were not so serious as to warrant complete rejection.

The accused's testimony was equally or more incredible.

The court found the accused had sprayed the complainant in the facial area, bear spray constitutes a weapon, and the accused's possession of a prohibited weapon was not adequately explained.

The accused was found guilty.

The applicant mother sought to amend her claim in a custody application from joint custody of her adult son (age 18) to sole custody, with paternal access subject to the child's wishes.

The respondent father opposed the amendment, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction to make custody orders for adult children under section 18(2) of the Children's Law Reform Act, which limits the definition of "child" to minors.

The court granted the amendment, holding that section 18(2) does not preclude custody orders for adult children and that such orders are necessary and desirable in practical circumstances where adult children remain dependent on their parents.

The Children's Aid Society of Algoma brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that four children were in need of protection and that their mother was not an appropriate caregiver.

The mother had an extensive history with the Society spanning decades, including her own childhood as a Crown Ward, and demonstrated persistent inability to provide adequate supervision, maintain stable housing, manage substance abuse and mental health issues, and exercise appropriate parenting judgment.

The court found that the children were in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act and that the mother could not be placed in full-time care of the children, though supervised access would continue.

A child protection case involving two children, V. (age 4.5) and J. (age 3.5), apprehended on March 3, 2009.

The Children's Aid Society sought Crown wardship without access for adoption purposes.

The mother sought return of the children with a supervision order; the father supported the mother's position but sought ongoing access.

The court found both children in need of protection under section 37(2)(b) of the Child and Family Services Act based on risk of physical harm due to parental neglect, inadequate care, poor supervision, and unsafe living conditions.

After a 16-day trial, the court ordered Crown wardship without access for both children, finding that return to the mother would create substantial to overwhelming risk of harm and that adoption was in the children's best interests.

This case involves two motions concerning temporary care and custody of four children apprehended by the Children's Aid Society of Algoma.

The Society sought temporary care and custody in its favour; the father sought placement of the children with himself or alternatively unsupervised liberal paternal access.

The court found that the Society failed to meet the statutory two-part test under section 51(3) of the Child and Family Services Act with respect to three of the four children.

The court was particularly critical of the warrantless apprehension of two older children, finding insufficient reasonable and probable grounds for their apprehension.

The court ordered the return of three children to their father's care and deferred determination regarding the youngest child pending further evidence on kinship placement options.

A mother sought an order placing her two-year-old child in her care and custody during a status review proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, or alternatively, sought to specify the details of her access (frequency, duration, location, and level of supervision).

The child had been in the care of the Children's Aid Society for over 18 months following apprehension due to protection concerns.

The court dismissed both the motion for interim care and custody and the motion for interim variation of the existing access order, finding that the mother failed to satisfy her evidentiary burden to demonstrate material changes in circumstances warranting a change from the status quo.

The court emphasized the importance of continuity of care for the young child and noted concerns regarding the mother's unresolved drug use, lack of stable housing, financial means, and childcare arrangements.

The Children's Aid Society of Algoma brought a motion seeking temporary care and custody of an eight-year-old child, along with orders for maternal and paternal access.

The child had been apprehended approximately three months prior due to concerns regarding malnutrition, poor hygiene, inadequate dental care, and general neglect.

The mother opposed the society's claims and sought return of the child to her care.

The father supported the society's custody claim but sought progressive paternal access.

The court granted the society's claim for temporary care and custody, finding reasonable grounds to believe the child would suffer harm if returned to the mother's care and that the mother had failed to adequately address identified problems despite months of intervention.

However, the court dismissed the society's claims for both maternal and paternal access orders, finding insufficient evidence that such orders would be in the child's best interests.

The court addressed multiple interim motions in a family law proceeding involving two children.

The mother sought interim custody of one child, child support for both children, section 7 expenses, and restraining orders.

The father sought to amend his answer to include a restraining order claim.

The court dismissed all restraining order claims due to insufficient evidence and lack of proper service.

The court declined to grant interim sole custody, finding the status quo acceptable pending final hearing.

The court granted interim child support of $664 per month based on the Child Support Guidelines, effective March 1, 2012, recognizing that both children now reside primarily with the mother.

The court deferred decisions on retroactive support and section 7 expenses pending final hearing with better evidence.

The Children's Aid Society of Algoma brought a motion seeking an interim order placing a child in the temporary care and custody of the mother under Society supervision, subject to specified terms and conditions.

The central issue was whether the mother's resumption of alcohol consumption posed a risk to the child.

The court found that given the mother's extensive history of substance abuse, criminal convictions, parole violations, and recent incidents of impaired driving and poor judgment while consuming alcohol, the consumption of alcohol by the mother posed a risk of harm to the child.

The court ordered that the child remain in the mother's care subject to conditions including a prohibition on alcohol consumption while the child was in her care.