Ezioma O. Nnorom

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a summary judgment motion seeking a custody order for the child, L.S., in favour of his paternal great-aunt, with supervised access to the mother.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding either the custody disposition or the access arrangements.

The mother had failed to take meaningful steps to address the Society's concerns, and the child was thriving in the great-aunt's care.

The court granted the custody order to the great-aunt and set conditions for the mother's supervised access, emphasizing the child's best interests and the need for permanency.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa sought a final order of Crown wardship for adoption for the child B. The respondent mother and father opposed, proposing the child be returned to the mother under a supervision order.

The court found the father had a history of domestic violence, lacked insight, and showed minimal commitment to addressing issues or exercising access.

The mother consistently prioritized her relationship with the father over the child's safety, lied to the Society, and failed to implement recommended therapies or parenting courses.

Considering the child's best interests and the parents' lack of commitment to rehabilitation, the court granted Crown wardship for adoption to the paternal uncle and his partner, with structured access for both parents.

The applicant children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking Crown wardship of two children.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking the return of the children under a supervision order.

The court found that the mother's evidence consisted of bare denials and failed to raise a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding her history of domestic violence, substance abuse, and parenting deficits.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the court granted summary judgment, making the children Crown wards with access at the society's discretion.

The Children's Aid Society sought an order for Crown wardship for the purpose of adoption for two young children.

The mother and maternal grandparents proposed competing plans for the children's return or placement.

The court found the mother had not demonstrated the necessary stability, having struggled with substance abuse and inconsistent access.

The grandparents' plan was also rejected due to their inability to set boundaries with the mother and physical limitations in managing the children.

The court ordered Crown wardship for both children but granted the grandparents supervised access, finding it would not impair future adoption opportunities.