Jacalyn D. Walters

The Respondent (mother) brought an urgent motion for the return of children to her primary care, alleging the Applicant (father) unilaterally withheld them due to her profession as a healthcare worker during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Applicant (father) filed a cross-motion seeking primary care or, alternatively, a week-on/week-off schedule, citing the mother's increased risk of exposure to COVID-19.

The court found the father's actions unreasonable and that he was using the pandemic to his advantage.

The court ordered a temporary week-on/week-off schedule for the children while schools are closed and the Stay at Home Order is in effect, reverting to the separation agreement's terms thereafter.

The court also mandated mutual notification for COVID-19 symptoms/testing and specific protocols for exchanges, but declined to include a police clause.

The Respondent mother brought an urgent motion to enforce a prior order for the children's primary residence, add a police enforcement clause, and vary the father's access to be supervised or suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The father opposed, arguing the children wished to reside with him.

The Children's Aid Society (CAS) also sought to admit fresh evidence (surreptitious recordings) which was dismissed by the court.

The court found the father in breach of prior orders and that his actions empowered the children to disregard court orders.

The court granted the mother's motion, ordering the children's return to her care, adding a police enforcement clause, and mandating supervised access for the father, giving little weight to the children's stated preferences due to parental influence.

The Children's Aid Society of Haldimand and Norfolk sought an order for extended society care for two children, C and D, without parental access, aiming for adoption.

The respondent mother sought the children's return under a supervision order, citing improvements in her life.

The respondent father did not participate.

The court, applying the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, found that despite the mother's progress, her inconsistent access, substance use, mental health struggles, and poor problem-solving skills meant the children remained in need of protection.

The court determined that extended society care was in the children's best interests, denying parental access but ordering access between the children and their three older siblings.