Faizal Roy

The Child and Family Services of Grand Erie brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order for extended society care and limited access for the child, Z.S. The respondent mother, J.L.S., opposed, seeking custody or joint/sole care with a proposed support person, A.G. The court applied the summary judgment test in child protection cases, emphasizing the "trial worthy evidence rule" and the child's best interests.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the mother failed to demonstrate a viable plan to address long-standing drug abuse and unstable housing concerns.

The proposed plan involving A.G. was deemed speculative and unviable due to A.G.'s own history and lack of cooperation.

The motion for extended care was granted, and the mother's access was limited to the agency's discretion, with a minimum of six visits per year.

The Children's Aid Society of the Niagara Region brought a motion for summary judgment to place two children, A. (5 years old) and H. (17 months old), in extended society care for adoption without parental access.

The Society cited parental instability, substance misuse, and lack of engagement.

The mother (M.B.) and father (D.J.) opposed, arguing for a trial and asserting the Society had not provided adequate support.

The court found the children were in continued need of protection and ordered extended society care for both, noting that statutory timelines for interim care had been exceeded.

However, the court found genuine issues for trial regarding access for M.B. and D.J., as the Society failed to provide sufficient evidence that access would impair adoption opportunities or was not in the children's best interests.

Access for J.S.J.M. (H.'s father) was denied due to complete lack of involvement.

This case concerns a temporary care hearing for a 13-month-old child, G.R., whose parents are J.R. (mother) and S.J. (father).

The Children's Aid Society intervened due to the mother's continued relationship with an individual facing sexual assault charges, her lack of insight into the associated risks, and her inability to meet the child's basic needs, including medical care and safe sleeping arrangements.

The court found the child to be at high risk if returned to the mother's care and determined that a supervision order would be insufficient to mitigate this risk due to the mother's unreliability and repeated breaches of the safety plan.

The court also addressed the interpretation of "charge" under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, concluding that both parents shared charge.

The child remained placed with the father, and the mother's access was ordered to be supervised, removing the Society's discretion for unsupervised access, as the court found unsupervised access incongruent with the child's best interests given the mother's credibility issues and non-compliance.

The Children's Aid Society of the Region of Niagara sought summary judgment for extended care of a child without access, for the purpose of adoption, under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The child was found in need of protection.

The mother and First Nation did not participate.

The father, M.M., opposed the motion, arguing for access.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, determining that continued access would not be in the child's best interests and would impair future adoption opportunities, given the parents' inability to provide consistent care and the child's lack of significant bond with them.

The Society's motion was granted, and the child was placed in extended care without access.

This is a child protection matter under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

Following an appeal that remitted the issue of access back to trial, the court determined whether the respondent father should be granted access to two children in the extended care of the Children's Aid Society.

The respondent father withdrew his claim for access mid-trial after hearing evidence from the Society.

The court applied the new best interests test established in recent Court of Appeal decisions and determined that access was not in the children's best interests, considering their trauma histories, emotional development, stability in their prospective adoptive placement, and the absence of a meaningful relationship with the respondent father.

This ruling addresses parenting arrangements for two young children, Haylee (step-daughter to the applicant) and Jace (biological son of both parties).

The applicant sought custody of both children and unsupervised access, while the respondent sought custody of both, supervised access for the applicant, and no access for Haylee.

The court found both parties lacked credibility.

It denied the applicant's claim for Haylee, respecting the respondent's parental autonomy as the applicant failed to establish a "settled intention" to treat Haylee as his child or arbitrary imperilment of the relationship.

For Jace, the court awarded temporary custody to the respondent but granted the applicant a gradually increasing schedule of unsupervised access, finding it to be in Jace's best interests.

The respondent mother sought an urgent temporary order for unsupervised access to the child, K.L.J., and police enforcement of access.

The applicant father opposed, raising concerns about the mother's lifestyle, past conduct, and the child's development, arguing for continued supervision.

The court found the matter urgent due to the complete cessation of contact between the mother and the vulnerable child.

It rejected the father's arguments for supervised access, finding insufficient evidence of safety concerns, and ordered immediate unsupervised access for the mother on alternate weekends and a mid-week overnight.

The request for police enforcement was declined.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion for immediate unsupervised alternate weekend access and a transfer of primary placement of the child, alleging denial of access and serious misconduct by the applicant father, including sexual assault.

The applicant father opposed the urgency determination.

The court, operating under COVID-19 protocols, found the matter potentially urgent due to the suspension of access, new serious allegations, and concerns about the father potentially exploiting the status quo.

The court ordered a schedule for responding materials and an updated CAS letter, setting the matter for a hearing on or after May 13, 2020, and strongly encouraged negotiation.

This is a triage endorsement for an urgent motion in a family law matter.

The applicant mother sought the return of her two children, alleging the respondent father refused to return them after a visit, disrupting a long-standing parenting status quo.

The court made a preliminary finding that the issues were potentially urgent and set a schedule for the filing of materials, emphasizing the need for evidence from both parents.

The court also provided guidance on parenting principles, including reluctance to disrupt status quo, maximum contact, and disapproval of unilateral action.