Gia Williams

The appellant brought a motion for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal an interlocutory order regarding parenting time.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no bona fide intention to appeal within the required timeframe and an inadequate explanation for the delay.

The court also noted that granting the extension would prejudice the respondent and the child, especially with a trial scheduled in two months.

The Appellant Mother appealed a child protection order that placed her child in the Father's custody with supervised access for the Mother.

The Mother alleged denial of procedural fairness, errors in admitting child's hearsay statements, allowing an expert to testify beyond his expertise, and an erroneous discretionary access order.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of procedural fairness, proper handling of child's statements, appropriate expert testimony, and valid discretionary access order under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The children's aid society brought a protection application seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection due to emotional harm caused by the mother.

Following the parents' separation, the mother repeatedly made unfounded allegations that the father was sexually and physically abusing the child, subjecting the child to numerous police and medical investigations.

The court found that the mother's fixed, false belief system and coaching caused the child severe anxiety and emotional harm.

The court concluded the child was in need of protection, granted sole custody to the father, and ordered that the mother's access be supervised.

The Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion to terminate a supervision order granted on May 31, 2016, which had placed a child in the care of the father.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking the return of the child to her care.

The father and the child's counsel supported the Society's request.

The court found that the child had transitioned well into the father's care, the home was stable, there were no ongoing protection concerns, and the child did not wish to meet with child protection workers or counsel.

The court granted the Society's motion and terminated the supervision order, finding no genuine issue for trial and that termination was in the child's best interests.

A child protection society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that an eleven-year-old child was in need of protection and should be placed in the care of the father under a six-month supervision order with conditions regarding access to the mother.

The mother opposed the motion and sought a trial.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that the child had suffered physical and emotional harm due to ongoing parental conflict and that the mother had not demonstrated sufficient insight or change to warrant a different disposition.

The court found no genuine issue for trial on the issues of protection, disposition, or access.