Jean LeDrew Metcalfe

This decision concerns an application by J.D.S. to adopt A.A., a child with complex medical and developmental needs, and the subsequent motion by P.E., the biological father, to withdraw his previously given consent to the adoption.

The court reviews the statutory framework under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and applies the best interests of the child test.

The court finds that P.E. had capacity and was fully informed when he gave consent, and that his later dissatisfaction with parenting time arrangements does not vitiate that consent.

The court concludes that it is not in A.A.'s best interests to permit P.E. to withdraw his consent, given her strong bond with J.D.S. and her siblings, her special needs, and the lack of insight or planning by P.E. regarding her care.

The Openness Agreement remains in effect, and the parties are ordered to communicate via a parenting app.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion seeking to continue the placement of a child, N., with the Father, with Mother's parenting time at the Society's discretion.

Mother sought an equally shared parenting arrangement.

The court determined that Father was the primary caregiver before the Society's intervention, and as there were no protection concerns with Father, N. must remain in his care according to the mandatory placement hierarchy under section 94(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The court found Mother's mental health and past impulsive behaviours, including incidents witnessed by the child, posed risks, and her proposed shared care plan lacked sufficient detail and safety measures.

The Society was granted discretion over Mother's access, with parameters for future review based on Mother's progress.

The Applicant brought a motion to strike the Respondent's Answer due to his persistent non-compliance with court orders, including failure to participate meaningfully in the proceeding, pay costs, and file required documents.

The court found multiple triggering events for striking the pleadings, noting the Respondent's pervasive disregard for court authority and the resulting delay.

While acknowledging the drastic nature of striking pleadings, especially in family law cases involving children, the court found it proportionate given the circumstances.

The Respondent's Answer was conditionally struck, allowing for reinstatement if he complied with specific terms by a set date.

If non-compliance persists, the Respondent's trial participation will be severely limited, but not entirely denied, to ensure a "richer record" for the children's best interests determination.

Costs were awarded to the Applicant.

The applicant was successful on motions for records and sole decision-making responsibility for the parties' children.

She sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The respondent argued that he should not have to pay the applicant's legal fees and that each party should bear their own costs.

The court held that pursuant to section 46(1) of the Legal Aid Services Act, the applicant's legally-aided status did not reduce her entitlement to costs.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs fixed at $3,000.00.

The mother applied for sole custody and primary residence of the parties' four-year-old child, while the father sought joint custody and equal parenting time.

The court found both parents fit but noted historical acrimony and the father's instability.

The court ordered joint custody, with the mother having final decision-making authority over education.

The child's primary residence was ordered to remain with the mother, with the father receiving alternate weekends and Wednesday overnights during the school year, and equal parenting time during the summer.

The father was also ordered to pay ongoing child support and arrears based on his ODSP income.