Helen Trentos

The appellant father appealed a final order of custody granting care of his biological child to the maternal grandmother.

The child, who has Native status, was found in need of protection after the mother passed away.

The father argued the trial judge erred in applying the best interests test, weighing his criminal record, and assessing the grandmother's commitment to the child's cultural heritage.

The appeal court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge made no palpable and overriding errors and properly considered the child's Native status and best interests.

The Windsor-Essex Children's Aid Society brought a motion seeking production of hospital records for the respondent mother from January 1, 2016 to August 31, 2017.

The Society sought these records to investigate its theory that the mother was a victim of domestic violence perpetrated by the father.

The respondents opposed the motion, arguing it constituted a fishing expedition.

The court found the Society's request as originally framed was over-broad but granted a narrowed version of the motion, restricting production to hospital admission records where the mother presented with physical injuries or complaints about domestic conflict.

A status review application under the Child and Family Services Act concerning the disposition of a three-year-old child (E.P.) who had been apprehended at birth due to prenatal drug exposure and Neo-Natal Abstinence Syndrome.

The child had been in continuous foster care since October 2012.

The mother sought placement of the child in her care subject to society supervision, having achieved approximately eight months of sobriety following residential treatment.

The maternal grandmother sought placement as an alternative.

The society sought Crown wardship without access to facilitate adoption by the foster parents.

The court found that while the mother had made significant progress in her recovery and compliance with the plan of care, the paramount consideration was the child's best interests, which required maintaining continuity of care with the foster parents to whom the child was deeply bonded.

The court made an order for Crown wardship without access.

In a child protection appeal, the child protection society brought a motion to adduce fresh evidence consisting of affidavits filed during a prior motion to stay a Crown wardship order pending appeal.

The appellant parent opposed the admission of the affidavits on the basis that the evidence could have been presented at the original hearing.

The court held that in child protection appeals the admissibility of fresh evidence is governed by a more flexible standard focused on the best interests of the child.

Finding the affidavits highly relevant to the child’s welfare, the court admitted them as fresh evidence, except for one paragraph of a foster parent affidavit that was excluded as speculative opinion evidence with minimal probative value.

A status review application brought by Bruce Grey Child and Family Services seeking an order of Crown wardship with no access for a child (D.J.M.R.) born in 2005.

The child had been found in need of protection in 2009 and had spent over half his life in the care of the Society.

The mother (K.A.A.) sought to have the child returned to her care.

The court found that while the mother had made positive changes including establishing a stable relationship free from domestic violence and demonstrating improved mental health management, significant concerns remained regarding her historical pattern of prioritizing romantic relationships over her children's needs and her limited parenting capacity as documented in a psychological assessment.

The court also found serious failures by the Society in implementing court-ordered sibling access.

Despite reservations, the court determined it was in the child's best interests to be placed in the mother's care subject to 12 months of Society supervision with extensive conditions, rather than proceed with Crown wardship and adoption, given the child's strong emotional ties to his mother and the lack of a concrete adoption plan.

The mother appealed a summary judgment order that made her three-year-old child a Crown ward without access.

She brought a motion to stay the no-access order pending the hearing of her appeal.

The court found that the appeal raised serious issues, particularly regarding the motion judge's reliance on hearsay evidence and the mother's intention to introduce fresh evidence of her improved circumstances.

The court also determined that resuming supervised access was in the child's best interests, given the mother's positive interactions with the child and the risk of permanent psychological harm if access remained severed.

The motion was granted, and supervised access was ordered pending the appeal.