Holly Watson

This decision concerns a motion to change a parenting order under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court finds a material change in circumstances since the original order, including ongoing conflict, family violence, and the child's exposure to harm.

The mother is granted sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of the child, with the father receiving specified parenting time.

The court also addresses child support, imputing income to the father based on available evidence, and sets out a detailed parenting schedule and related orders.

The children's aid society brought a status review application seeking to place three children in the permanent custody of their paternal grandparents.

The children had been in the grandparents' care for over two years due to the parents' substance abuse and instability.

The mother opposed the order but failed to attend the trial or demonstrate meaningful progress in rehabilitation.

The court found that the grandparents provided safe, stable, and loving homes and that the parents were unlikely to resume their parenting roles in the foreseeable future.

The court granted custody to the grandparents with supervised access for the parents.

The Children’s Aid Society brought a status review application seeking extended society care for two children, E.P. and M.P., who had been in temporary care for approximately 1100 days.

The mother, father, and maternal grandmother (respondents) opposed this, proposing the children be returned to their care subject to Society supervision.

The court found the children continued to be in need of protection due to the respondents' ongoing addiction and mental health issues.

After evaluating all plans of care, the court determined that extended society care was in the children's best interests, given their complex behavioural and educational needs, tumultuous placement history, and the respondents' fragile recovery and inability to provide sustained safe care.

Access for all respondents was ordered to continue at the Society's discretion, subject to the children's wishes.

The Children's Aid Society sought a supervision order for a child with kin, while the kin (maternal great aunt and her spouse) sought custody.

The mother, father, and foster parents proposed extended society care for adoption by the foster parents.

The court found the child in need of protection due to the mother's drug abuse and unstable living situation.

The court dismissed expert evidence on attachment theory as not specific to the child.

Ultimately, the court granted custody of the child to the kin, finding it to be in the child's best interests, and ordered reasonable access for the mother, siblings, and foster parents.

This endorsement resolves a preliminary objection regarding the participation of foster parents, D.T. and S.C., in a motion to add prospective kin placement D.M. and R.A. as party respondents in a child protection application.

The court examined the definition of 'hearing' under the Family Law Rules and the Courts of Justice Act, concluding that an interlocutory motion constitutes a 'hearing,' thereby entitling the foster parents to participate.

The foster parents of a nine-month-old child brought a motion to be added as parties or granted expanded participatory rights in a child protection proceeding where the Society sought society wardship.

The child had been in their care since she was three days old.

The court applied the criteria for adding parties in child protection cases and determined that adding the foster parents would prolong the proceeding, was not necessary to determine the issues, and that they did not have a legal interest at this stage.

The motion was dismissed, though the foster parents retained their statutory right to make submissions at trial.

The applicant sought indefinite spousal support of $1,000 per month due to a disability that rendered her unable to work.

The respondent proposed $400 per month for a limited duration.

The parties were married for seven years.

The court balanced the applicant's indefinite needs against the short duration of the marriage and the respondent's financial circumstances, including his new child.

Applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, the court ordered the respondent to pay $622 per month for approximately six and a half years, and to secure this obligation through a life insurance trust.

This decision addresses a costs issue following a temporary care and custody motion in a child protection proceeding.

The court had previously found that the society improperly apprehended several children without a warrant immediately after a justice of the peace refused an apprehension warrant, criticizing the society’s reliance on an incorrect statutory provision and its disregard for the earlier judicial decision.

Although costs are not presumptively awarded in child protection matters under r. 24(2) of the Family Law Rules, the court held that costs may be appropriate where a society engages in procedural misconduct or irregularity causing unnecessary litigation.

The court concluded that the society’s misuse of statutory authority and resulting wrongful apprehension directly caused the respondent to incur additional legal expenses.

A costs award of $3,250 inclusive of disbursements and HST was ordered against the society.