Dr. Daniel T. Ashbourne

The children's aid society sought Crown wardship for four children.

The mother and her current partner sought the return of the children under a supervision order.

The father of one of the children sought custody of his daughter.

The court found all four children in need of protection due to the parents' history of domestic violence, substance abuse, mental health issues, and unstable relationships.

The court concluded that the mother and her current partner lacked the insight and ability to safely parent the children.

The father of one child was found to be more suited as an access parent due to his unresolved anger management and substance abuse issues.

The court ordered Crown wardship for all four children, with access granted to the father of one child at the society's discretion, and denied access to the mother and her current partner for the three youngest children.

The applicant Children's Aid Society sought leave to appeal a costs order requiring it to pay the respondent stepfather's costs on a full recovery basis in a child protection and status review proceeding.

The motion judge granted leave to appeal, finding reason to believe the costs judge misapprehended facts regarding whether the Society withheld expert reports from the respondent, and erred in principle by treating a status review application as an extension of a protection application for costs purposes.