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 brought a motion to reduce the mother's access to the child and remove the stepfather's access, while providing access to the paternal great-aunt.

The mother brought a cross-motion seeking the child's return to her care.

The court denied the mother's cross-motion, finding she had not met the high threshold under s. 113(8) of the CYFSA for returning the child to her care, primarily due to her inconsistency and the child's need for stability.

The court granted the Society's motion to vary access, reducing the mother's minimum access to once per week, removing the stepfather's access, and granting the paternal great-aunt access, finding these changes were in the child's best interests, considering both the CYFSA and the augmented best interests test under the Federal Act for Indigenous children.

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 brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection and an order for Crown wardship.

The child had been apprehended due to domestic violence between the parents and the mother's failure to protect the child from the father.

The court granted summary judgment finding the child in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act, noting the parents' history of conflict and the mother's lack of insight.

However, the court dismissed the motion for summary judgment regarding Crown wardship, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding the appropriate disposition, as the mother had made efforts to rehabilitate herself and raised concerns about the parenting capacity assessment.

The applicant sought enforcement of an unpaid net family property equalization payment by obtaining control over the sale of the respondent's home.

The respondent sought an adjournment and relied in part on a pending WSIB claim, while the record also disclosed ongoing child support arrears owed by the applicant.

The court denied the adjournment, confirmed the applicant's entitlement to recover the equalization payment, and ordered an expedited sale process with specified appraisal, listing, access, vacancy, carrying-cost, and trust terms.

The judge remained seized to supervise implementation and any further issues arising from the sale.

On a family law motion to change a final order, the applicant sought joint custody, an expanded parenting schedule, and corresponding child support changes.

Applying the best interests of the child test under s. 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court found the parties were unable to co-parent and ordered that the respondent retain sole custody and final decision-making authority.

The court declined to alter the existing schedule immediately, but prospectively ordered a week on/week off shared parenting arrangement beginning in May 2015 in light of expected changes to the respondent’s employment circumstances.

Child support remained unchanged until May 1, 2015, after which offset guideline support would apply, and section 7 expenses were to be shared proportionately to income.

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.