Dr. Anne Niec

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order to place three children in extended society care with no access to the respondent parents.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding the need for protection, citing chronic exposure to domestic violence and conflict in the home.

The children were ordered into extended society care.

The court granted summary judgment denying access to one father who had no relationship with his child.

However, the court found a genuine issue for trial regarding access for the mother and the other father, directing that issue to a focused hearing.

Two motions were heard by the respondents D.L. and T.S. in a child protection proceeding.

The first motion sought to vary the interim access order by increasing access to the children and permitting community visits.

The second motion sought an order prohibiting access by S.M.L.B. (the biological mother of one child) to J.L. The court found a material change in circumstances and granted a modest increase in access to D.L. and T.S., conditional on their participation in parenting programming.

The court rejected the motion to prohibit access by S.M.L.B., finding that supervised access was in the child's best interests and should continue.

This is a child protection trial under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act involving three children.

The Children's Aid Society sought findings of protection and Crown Wardship for all three children.

The court found that the mother inflicted physical harm on the children through hitting them with a stick and other harsh discipline, causing complex trauma and emotional harm.

The court made findings of protection for all three children.

For the two older children, the court ordered Crown Wardship with no access to the mother.

For the youngest child, the court placed him in the custody of his father with no access to the mother, finding that the father was providing appropriate care and that the child was thriving in his care.

The Children's Aid Society apprehended a young child due to severe concerns of medical child abuse (Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy) by the mother.

On a motion for temporary care and access, the parents sought the return of the child to their care and expanded access, while the Society sought directions on access and the distribution of a parenting capacity assessment.

The court found credible and trustworthy evidence of risk of harm and ordered the child to remain in the temporary care of the maternal grandmother.

The court granted a gradual expansion of access, allowing limited unsupervised access for the father, provided the mother is never left alone with the child.

The court also ordered the distribution of the assessment to specific medical and childcare providers.

The applicant children's aid society sought a finding that four children were in need of protection and an order for Crown wardship without access for the purposes of adoption.

The children had been apprehended due to severe neglect, hazardous living conditions, and exposure to domestic violence.

The respondent mother, who suffered from untreated complex post-traumatic stress disorder, sought the return of the children under a supervision order.

The court found the children in need of protection and ordered Crown wardship without access, concluding that the mother's unresolved trauma prevented her from safely parenting the children and that access would not be beneficial and could impair adoption opportunities.

The appellant appealed convictions for sexual assault and sexual touching involving a child complainant, arguing ineffective assistance of trial counsel and seeking to adduce fresh evidence of an alleged recantation.

The court held that counsel's decision not to call the complainant's mother was a defensible strategic choice and that the failure to obtain a rebuttal expert caused no prejudice because the proposed opinion evidence did not undermine the core issue of identity of the perpetrator.

Applying the Palmer framework, the court found the proposed fresh evidence was not reasonably capable of belief due to pervasive contradictions and unreliability.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, and although leave to appeal sentence was granted, the five-year penitentiary sentence was upheld as fit.