Francis Amenyo Aheto-Tsegah

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to place the child, K, in the custody of her paternal great-grandmother, D.L., pursuant to section 102(1) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA).

K's parents, E.K. (Mother) and O.K. (Father), opposed the motion, while D.L. supported it.

The court granted the Society's motion, finding that the parents had not made significant progress to address protection concerns since a previous order, and that it was in K's best interest to remain in D.L.'s care, ensuring a safe, stable environment and continuity of care, especially given K's serious medical needs.

The applicant father sought orders for decision-making, medical decision-making, and full-time Montessori pre-school attendance for their two-and-a-half-year-old daughter, Maeve, citing her severe neutropenia and the mother's alleged indifference and communication failures.

The respondent mother argued the motion was premature, pending a report from the Ontario Children’s Lawyer, and that there was insufficient medical evidence to support the father's claims or compel changes to the status quo.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding he had not met the high onus to vary an interim order, as the evidence did not clearly and unequivocally establish that the current arrangements placed the child's welfare at risk.

The court also ordered case management due to the high conflict between the parties and awarded costs to the mother.

The Applicant Father brought a motion seeking interim orders regarding parenting time, decision-making, and communication, and to strike portions of the Respondent Mother’s pleadings for failing to provide court-ordered disclosure.

The Mother filed a cross-motion addressing similar issues.

The court granted the Father increased parenting time, ordered the Mother to provide full consent for the child's developmental services, and compelled her to complete outstanding financial disclosure.

The Mother was also ordered to pay the Father's costs due to her non-compliance with disclosure orders.

The court declined to grant sole decision-making responsibility to either parent, leaving that issue for a future trial.

Mr. Debassige, a member of the M’Chigeeng First Nation, sought to vary a parenting schedule to increase the children's connection to their First Nation's heritage, including changing their primary residence to Ottawa, having them attend school in Ottawa, and specific time for Indigenous events.

Ms. Wakeling opposed these claims, arguing there was no material change in circumstances and that she supported the children's heritage.

Ms. Wakeling also sought an order preventing Mr. Debassige from bringing further variation motions without leave.

The court found no material change warranting a change in primary residence or school attendance.

However, it did find a material change regarding the ongoing conflict over Aboriginal Day and powwow schedules, which warranted a variation to provide clarity.

The court varied the schedule to include specific provisions for these events and dental appointments, emphasizing the children's best interests and connection to their heritage.

Ms. Wakeling's request to prevent Mr. Debassige from bringing further motions was dismissed.

The court considered costs following a 16-day trial concerning custody of and access to a child.

Both parties sought full recovery of costs, alleging unreasonable behaviour by the other.

The court found divided success, noting the applicant was successful in obtaining generous unsupervised access, while the respondent had greater success on ancillary issues.

Neither party's offer to settle was found to be more favourable than the final order.

Despite some unreasonable behaviour from both sides and the applicant's failure to comply with disclosure, the court was not persuaded that the applicant's actions constituted bad faith under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules.

Considering all factors, including the divided success and the proportionality of costs, the court determined that no costs should be awarded to either party.

A father sought leave under s. 65.1(4) and (5) of the Child and Family Services Act to bring an application to review the status of his children, who had been crown wards placed for several years with their maternal grandparents.

The court considered the governing criteria for leave, including bona fides, whether unusual circumstances justified reopening a permanent placement, whether the review would advance the purposes of the Act, and whether the applicant established a prima facie case.

The evidence showed the children were thriving in a stable and nurturing home with their grandparents and maintained a positive relationship with their father.

The father failed to demonstrate unusual circumstances or provide a compelling basis to disturb the children’s long‑standing placement.

The motion for leave was dismissed.

Child protection disposition following an amended status review under the Child and Family Services Act concerning two young children with significant behavioural and developmental challenges.

The applicant society sought Crown wardship without access for the purpose of adoption and a restraining order against the father.

Both parents opposed the application and proposed separate plans of care, including supervision orders and kinship placement with maternal grandparents.

The court found the children continued to be in need of protection and that neither parent’s plan provided sufficient stability, parenting capacity, or ability to work cooperatively with required support services.

Crown wardship for the purpose of adoption was ordered and a restraining order was issued restricting the father’s contact with the society, foster parents, and future adoptive parents.