Dr. Jean-Victor Wittenberg

The Appellant Mother appealed a child protection order that placed her child in the Father's custody with supervised access for the Mother.

The Mother alleged denial of procedural fairness, errors in admitting child's hearsay statements, allowing an expert to testify beyond his expertise, and an erroneous discretionary access order.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of procedural fairness, proper handling of child's statements, appropriate expert testimony, and valid discretionary access order under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The children's aid society brought a protection application seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection due to emotional harm caused by the mother.

Following the parents' separation, the mother repeatedly made unfounded allegations that the father was sexually and physically abusing the child, subjecting the child to numerous police and medical investigations.

The court found that the mother's fixed, false belief system and coaching caused the child severe anxiety and emotional harm.

The court concluded the child was in need of protection, granted sole custody to the father, and ordered that the mother's access be supervised.

The Children's Aid Society of Peel brought a child protection application seeking a finding that a child was in need of protection due to emotional harm caused by the mother's actions.

The mother had made repeated unfounded allegations of sexual abuse against the father, subjected the child to numerous investigations and examinations, and created a high-conflict environment that caused the child serious anxiety and stress.

The court found that the child had suffered emotional harm as a result of the mother's pattern of making false allegations, repeatedly involving authorities, and pressuring the child to make negative statements about the father.

The court granted custody to the father with supervised access to the mother, finding that the mother's personality disorder and fixed belief system made her unable to recognize or change her harmful behavior.

The applicant society sought to introduce the expert opinion evidence of a psychiatrist regarding the impact of substance abuse on parenting in a child protection trial.

The respondents opposed the admission of the evidence.

The court conducted a voir dire and applied the Mohan and Abbey tests for the admissibility of expert evidence.

The court found that the proposed evidence was neither relevant nor necessary, as the expert had not met the parents or the child and could only speak in generalities.

Furthermore, the expert was not properly qualified in the specific area of addictions, and the late service of the expert report caused undue prejudice to the respondents.

The request to introduce the expert evidence was denied.

A child protection agency sought to introduce expert psychiatric evidence regarding the impact of parental substance abuse on child parenting capacity.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine the admissibility of the expert evidence.

The respondent parents opposed the evidence on grounds of relevance, necessity, expert qualification, procedural non-compliance, and prejudicial effect.

The court excluded the evidence, finding it lacked relevance and necessity, the expert was not properly qualified in the specific area of substance abuse and parenting, and the probative value was substantially outweighed by prejudicial effect, particularly given inadequate notice and the risk of case delay contrary to the child's best interests.