Dr. McLean

The children's aid society sought an order granting custody of a four-year-old child to the maternal grandmother, with access to the parents.

The father initially sought sole custody but conceded during the trial that the grandmother should have custody.

The court found that the father lacked insight into his parenting role and exhibited behaviors that undermined the grandmother and the mother.

Applying the best interests of the child factors under the Child and Family Services Act, the court granted custody to the grandmother and ordered that the father's access be at the grandmother's discretion.

The father was also ordered not to return to court on custody and access issues without proof of meaningful psychotherapy.

The Children's Aid Society sought a finding that two children were in need of protection and an order placing them in the care of their mother and her spouse.

The father sought to have the children returned to his care.

The court found the children in need of protection due to exposure to domestic violence, drug trafficking, weapons, and parental alienation by the father.

The court granted joint custody to the mother and her spouse, with no access to the father, finding that the father's anti-social behaviour and refusal to follow court orders posed a significant risk of emotional and physical harm to the children.

The children's aid society and the parents brought competing summary judgment motions regarding the custody and access of two children following a highly conflictual separation involving domestic violence.

The court found the children were in need of protection due to emotional harm caused by the parents' toxic relationship.

The court granted the society's motion to place the children in the sole custody of the mother, noting she had successfully completed programming and cooperated with the society.

The father's motion for sole custody was dismissed.

However, the court declined to terminate the father's access to the younger child on a summary basis, directing that the issue of access proceed to trial.

The appellant mother appealed a motions judge's decision denying her request to relocate from Ottawa to Oakville with her five-year-old daughter.

The Court of Appeal found the motions judge erred by refusing to admit fresh evidence regarding the mother's pregnancy and changed family circumstances, refusing to permit cross-examination of the court-appointed assessor, and delegating the mobility determination to the assessor without independently applying the Gordon v. Goertz factors.

The appeal was allowed, permitting the mother to relocate with the child.