Jane McCalla

The children's aid society brought a motion for temporary care and custody of a one-year-old child, seeking placement with a kin caregiver.

The parents opposed the motion, seeking the child's return subject to a supervision order.

The court found credible and trustworthy evidence establishing reasonable grounds to believe the child was at risk of harm due to the father's domestic violence and alcohol abuse, and the mother's inability to protect the child.

The court concluded that a supervision order would not adequately protect the child given the parents' history of non-cooperation with the society and failure to engage in recommended services.

The child was ordered to be placed in the temporary care and custody of the kin caregiver, with specified access for the parents.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for a temporary order to place the child in the care of the mother under the Society's supervision pending the final disposition of the application.

The child had been in the temporary care of the father since apprehension.

The court granted the motion, emphasizing the statutory requirement to return the child to the custodial parent if safe, the benefit of reuniting the child with siblings, and concerns regarding the father's pending criminal sentencing.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa sought Crown wardship for the child ZS via summary judgment.

The mother opposed, arguing for another chance to parent.

The court found the child in need of protection due to the parents' history of missed visits, domestic conflict, and inability to meet the child's significant medical needs, especially after an unsuccessful reintegration attempt.

Given the child had been in care for 18 months, exceeding statutory timelines, the court determined it was in the child's best interest to be made a Crown ward for adoption, dismissing the mother's arguments as unsubstantiated denials.

The child protection agency brought a summary judgment motion seeking a final order placing a child in the custody of the maternal grandfather under s. 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The child had lived with the grandfather under society supervision for over three years and was doing well in that placement.

One parent opposed the motion and sought delay to demonstrate rehabilitation from substance abuse and criminal issues, arguing the matter should proceed to trial.

The court held that the responding party failed to demonstrate a genuine issue requiring a trial under Rule 16 and that the child’s need for permanency and stability outweighed the request for additional time.

Summary judgment was granted placing the child in the grandfather’s sole custody with parental access at the grandfather’s discretion.