James Mountford

The father brought a motion for the reinstatement of parenting time, which the mother had unilaterally suspended.

The mother also filed affidavits from the children, which were later withdrawn.

The court found that the mother's unilateral suspension of the court-ordered parenting schedule was unacceptable and that any changes to a court order must be sought through a formal Motion to Change.

The court ordered the immediate reinstatement of the parenting schedule from a 2013 order and dismissed the father's request for make-up time.

The mother was ordered to pay costs to the father due to her unreasonable conduct, including her failure to follow a court order and the improper filing of children's affidavits.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking to reinstate face-to-face access with his five-year-old child, which the applicant mother had suspended due to COVID-19 concerns.

The court, acting as Triage Judge, made a preliminary determination that the matter was "potentially urgent" given the suspension of a long-standing time-sharing arrangement.

The court set a schedule for the filing of responding and reply materials and provided guidance on the general principles for parenting issues during COVID-19, emphasizing cooperation and child-focused problem-solving.

In a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, several extended family members brought a motion seeking party status to advance a kinship placement plan.

The court applied the test for adding parties established in Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex v. H.(S.), considering the child’s best interests, delay, necessity for determination of issues, and whether the proposed party could advance a viable care plan.

The court found that the proposed caregiver being assessed for placement had a legal interest and that her participation was necessary to determine the appropriate placement of the child.

However, other relatives who supported the plan but were only in a transitional caregiving role were not necessary parties.

The court therefore granted party status to the proposed caregiver only and dismissed the motion as it related to the other relatives.

The applicant children's aid society brought a summary judgment motion seeking an order that a child be found in need of protection and made a Crown ward without access.

The respondent parents, who had significant cognitive limitations and a history of having four other children made Crown wards, opposed the motion.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the parents failed to respond meaningfully to the society's evidence regarding their inability to parent.

The court granted the summary judgment, finding the child in need of protection and ordering Crown wardship without access.