Heather-Ann Mendes

Trial to determine parenting arrangements for two young children where the father has been convicted of sexual offences against a person under 16, is appealing those convictions, and faces additional charges of sexual assault and forcible confinement against the mother.

The father's criminal release conditions prohibit contact with persons under 16 except through supervised access or family court order, and bar attendance at public locations where minors may be present.

The court rejected both proposed in-person supervisors -- the father's surety lacked any relationship with the children, and the mother's proposed supervisor was unaware of the nature of the concerns -- and found the father's home unsuitable given the children's unfamiliarity with it and the unresolved criminal matters.

The court ordered sole decision-making responsibility to the mother with virtual parenting time twice weekly, subject to review upon changes in the father's criminal proceedings.

Mother sought primary residence and final decision-making responsibility for a child enrolled by the father in school in Elliot Lake pursuant to his existing final decision-making authority.

The court found the father acted within the scope of the existing order, having consulted the mother multiple times over a year before enrollment, while the mother was evasive in addressing the schooling issue and failed to pursue mediation or timely court intervention.

The mother's subsequent unilateral actions regarding medical contacts and vaccinations further undermined co-parenting.

The court declined to change the child's primary residence, maintained the father's final decision-making authority with modifications, and structured parenting-time to maximize the mother's contact including weekends, holidays, and virtual access.

The applicant father and respondent mother, who share joint decision-making responsibility for their child, disagreed on which school the child should attend for junior kindergarten.

The father sought enrollment in F.H. Clergue French Immersion Public School, while the mother sought enrollment in Grandview Public School (English).

The court applied the best interests of the child standard under the Children's Law Reform Act and determined that enrollment in French Immersion was in the child's best interests, given the benefits of bilingualism, the child's young age and first school experience, the ease of transferring out if needed, and the father's commitment to support the child's French language development.

The Ontario Court of Justice dismissed a motion seeking disclosure of Batchewana First Nation band representative records related to a child custody dispute involving the maternal great-grandparents and the child's parents and paternal grandparents.

The court found that the First Nation and its band representative are not mandated or trained to assess child protection risks and do not hold investigatory powers akin to child welfare agencies.

The records sought were deemed irrelevant to the family law proceeding, which is distinct from a child protection case.

The court emphasized that the child protection agency, Nogdawindamin Family and Community Services, is the appropriate body tasked with assessing risk and providing relevant records, which were ordered produced by consent.

This decision addresses a motion concerning contact between paternal grandparents and their grandchild, Asher Krauter-Maki, in the context of a complex family situation involving a Voluntary Service Agreement (VSA), child protection concerns, and supervised parenting time.

The court considered the best interests of the child under section 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, the history of supervised parenting time, and the involvement of child protection agencies.

The court restored the status quo on a temporary basis, granting the paternal grandparents weekend contact with the child, with supervised presence of the father, and set directions for future proceedings including costs and further evidence.

The respondent T.A. brought a motion seeking re-introduction and virtual parenting time with the child K.A., whom he had not had contact with for nearly 10 years and who was unaware he was her biological father.

The child's mother, E.L., opposed the motion, citing K.A.'s lack of awareness of T.A.'s paternity and the serious criminal charges T.A. faced involving K.A.'s older siblings.

The court, applying the "best interests of the child" test under the Children's Law Reform Act, dismissed T.A.'s motion for immediate re-introductory parenting time.

Instead, the court ordered that K.A. be informed of T.A.'s biological fatherhood by her mental health worker with the mother's support, emphasizing a cautious approach due to the child's age, lack of prior relationship, and the criminal charges.

T.A. was granted leave to bring a new motion for parenting time after a period of counselling for K.A. and an update on her progress.

M.R. and D.R., former customary caregivers, brought a motion to be added as parties to a child protection proceeding concerning the child R.S.V.B. Batchewana First Nation brought a cross-motion to dismiss M.R. and D.R.'s motion.

The court dismissed M.R. and D.R.'s motion, finding they did not meet the statutory criteria for party status under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, nor did they demonstrate a legal interest or a viable plan in the child's best interests under the Family Law Rules.

The court noted significant concerns about their care and cooperation with the Agency and First Nation.

The Batchewana First Nation's motion to dismiss was granted.

A youth offender, H.K., was found guilty of failing to comply with a recognizance and sexual assault involving choking/suffocation.

The court considered a presentence report and psychological assessment detailing H.K.'s extensive history of mental health issues, childhood trauma, unstable living arrangements, and Indigenous ancestry.

Despite the Crown seeking custody and supervision, the court imposed a two-year probation order, a two-year weapons prohibition, and a DNA order.

The decision emphasized the unique and exceptional circumstances of the youth, including his diminished moral blameworthiness and intellectual difficulties, which influenced his lack of insight and remorse.

The court found that an extended period of probation, rather than custody, would best serve the rehabilitative and reintegrative principles of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The Children's Aid Society of Algoma brought an application regarding the child F.R.D. The respondent father, J.C., brought a motion for access to the child, which was opposed by the Society, the mother (C.D.), and Michipicoten First Nation.

The court dismissed the father's motion for access, finding that his extensive criminal history, including sexual offenses against his own children and the mother, and his lack of insight, meant that granting access was not in the child's best interests, despite the principle of maximum contact.

This endorsement addresses the temporary care and custody of a First Nation child, Z.O., who was removed from M.O.'s care and subsequently placed with his biological father, J.K. The court considered the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (CYFSA) and the federal An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Metis children, youth and families.

The court emphasized the priority of placement with a biological parent under the federal legislation, finding that Z.O.'s best interests were met by remaining with J.K., given no protection concerns and J.K.'s ability to provide cultural connection.

The "without prejudice" term of a previous interim order placing the child with J.K. was removed.

The Children's Aid Society of Algoma brought a motion to sever the case involving the child Z.O. from an existing child protection application and transfer the matter to Nogdawindamin Family and Community Services, an Indigenous child welfare agency.

Z.O.'s father (J.K.) and Serpent River First Nation, along with Nogdawindamin, consented to the motion.

The mother (A.B.) and step-father (M.O.) opposed the transfer, arguing that Z.O.'s half-sibling (A.O.) should also be transferred to keep the siblings together, or that the severance should be denied if A.O. was not included.

The court granted the severance and transfer of Z.O. to Nogdawindamin, emphasizing the legislative purpose of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act and An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, which support Indigenous child welfare agencies providing culturally appropriate services.

The court declined to transfer A.O., as she was not identified as First Nations, Inuit, or Métis, but noted the importance of reciprocating sibling access.

The Children's Aid Society of Algoma sought summary judgment in a child protection matter, requesting a finding of need for protection, deemed custody for the mother, and supervised access for the father.

The mother consented to the Society's proposals.

The father agreed to the protection finding and custody for the mother but contested the requirement for supervised access to default to a supervised access centre.

The court granted the Society's motion, finding the child in need of protection, awarding custody to the mother, and ordering supervised access for the father with the contested default provision, citing the history of domestic violence and the father's probation.

This trial decision addresses the sole remaining issue of parenting time for the respondent mother with the child.

The applicant father sought to maintain the existing arrangement where the mother's parenting time occurred during the maternal great-grandparents' court-ordered contact.

The respondent mother sought to expand her parenting time by having the maternal grandmother granted specified contact, allowing the mother to exercise parenting time during that period.

The court found that previous orders granting contact to the maternal great-grandparents were inappropriate as they were not parties to the proceeding and had not filed the necessary affidavit.

The court declined to order specific contact for the maternal grandmother for similar reasons.

The final order maintained the mother's parenting time during the maternal great-grandparents' contact, granting the great-grandparents discretion over who may be present.

The parties, including the maternal great-grandparents, were directed to attend alternative dispute resolution to establish a more permanent long-term parenting time and contact arrangement, with proper notice to the great-grandparents if their contact is to be impacted.

The mother was also prohibited from bringing a motion to change until an outstanding costs order was satisfied and was ordered not to consume alcohol or non-prescription drugs prior to or during parenting time due to past substance misuse.

This case involves an application for parenting orders and child support.

The applicant mother initially sought primary residence and decision-making responsibility, while the respondent father sought joint custody and week-about parenting time.

Over the course of the proceedings, interim orders shifted primary residence and decision-making to the father.

At trial, the court considered the best interests of the child, noting the father's consistent care and the mother's inconsistent contact and evasiveness regarding substance misuse.

The court granted the father primary residence and shared decision-making responsibility with the father having the final say in disagreements.

The mother was granted supervised parenting time, with a condition regarding substance consumption, and the possibility of review after six consistent months.

The mother was also ordered to provide annual income disclosure for child support review.

The Applicant, a paternal grandmother, sought specified contact with her grandchildren.

The Respondent mother sought contact at her discretion.

The court, applying the Children's Law Reform Act, found that while the grandmother had a right to a relationship with the children, her request for specified weekend contact was more akin to a parent's parenting time.

Given the father's unstable lifestyle and the mother's demonstrated willingness to facilitate contact, the court ordered contact for the grandmother at the mother's discretion, primarily during the father's parenting time, with a provision for mediation if contact ceases for an extended period.

The Children's Aid Society of Algoma brought a motion under section 98 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act for a psychosexual assessment of the respondent father, A.L.-S., due to his history of sexual assault convictions and concerns about risk to the child.

The maternal grandmother supported the motion, while the father opposed it, arguing it was unnecessary, invasive, and infringed his Charter rights.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Society failed to demonstrate the assessment was "necessary" as required by section 98, noting that the father's criminal record was already before the court and his insight could be tested via cross-examination.

The court also expressed uncertainty about the assessment's methodology, particularly the reliance solely on phallometric testing, and its relevance given the existing evidence.

In this criminal trial, the accused, Maggie Hallikainen, faced charges of impaired operation and over 80 blood-alcohol concentration.

The impaired charge was dismissed earlier.

The accused brought a Charter application, alleging breaches of sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, seeking exclusion of evidence.

The court found a serious breach of the applicant's section 8 Charter rights due to the arresting officer's unreliable and inconsistent evidence, particularly concerning the Approved Screening Device (ASD) test administration and note-taking.

Applying the Grant test, the court excluded the breath test evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Additionally, the Crown failed to prove the over 80 charge beyond a reasonable doubt due to unresolved discrepancies between two Certificates of a Qualified Technician.

Consequently, the remaining charge was dismissed.

The Applicant sought custody, child support, spousal support, and relocation to Nova Scotia.

The Respondent sought joint custody, primary residence in Sudbury, and opposed relocation and spousal support.

The court granted joint custody with primary residence to the Applicant, permitted relocation to Nova Scotia, ordered child support based on imputed income due to the Respondent's questionable financial activities and lack of employment effort, and fixed arrears.

The claim for spousal support was dismissed due to insufficient evidence from the Applicant.

The decision emphasized the child's best interests, the Applicant's role as primary caregiver, and the Respondent's concerning conduct.

The accused was charged with willfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group (homosexuals) by distributing DVDs with accompanying cover jackets containing statements such as "God hates the wicked and will destroy them with war; famine and death; the wicked includes sex-perverts; Christ has cursed Ontario for turning a blind eye to sexual perversion; God's wrath is on all who show compassion to her kind and commands good government to put her to death." The Crown proved all elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused's defence that the statements were religious opinion based on biblical interpretation was rejected.

The court found the materials constituted a clear call to action for violence against the identifiable group and did not fall within the scope of protected religious expression or freedom of expression under the Charter.

The accused was convicted.

A family law trial concerning custody, parenting time, religious upbringing, transportation arrangements, and child support for three children.

The applicant mother sought to maintain the status quo parenting arrangement and obtain child support in accordance with the respondent father's income.

The respondent father sought a week-about parenting schedule, permission for the children to be baptized in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, shared transportation responsibilities, and a reduction in child support below the set-off amount.

The court, applying the best interests of the child test and considering the Office of the Children's Lawyer's recommendations, ordered a modified parenting schedule with mid-week contact, permitted baptism at age eight, established shared transportation responsibilities, and fixed child support at the set-off amount with proportionate sharing of daycare expenses.