Jeffrey William Maxwell Hustins

The court granted summary judgment in a child protection proceeding, finding the child, T.O., in need of protection and placing her in the deemed custody of her father, J.O., with supervised access to her mother, B.R. The decision reviews the history of parental conflict, the mother’s mental health and repeated unfounded allegations of sexual abuse, and the father’s progress in addressing his own issues.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial and concluded that the mother’s lack of insight and continued behaviour posed ongoing risk to the child.

The Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking protection findings and disposition orders for three children.

The eldest child, M.W.W., disclosed sexual abuse by her stepfather, C.M., who was a respondent and self-represented.

The motion addressed C.M.'s procedural challenges regarding the Society's affidavit of documents and the admissibility of M.W.W.'s hearsay evidence.

The court admitted the hearsay evidence under the R. v. Khan test, found M.W.W. in need of protection due to sexual abuse, and the younger children (M.M. and W.M.) at risk of sexual abuse.

Deemed custody was granted to the mother, with no parenting time for C.M. with M.W.W., and supervised parenting time with the younger children contingent on C.M. completing a sexual offender risk assessment.

This pre-motion application addressed whether a Respondent Father, facing criminal charges for alleged sexual abuse, could be compelled to file an affidavit in a child protection summary judgment motion without violating his Charter right against self-incrimination.

The court found that the required affidavit evidence was "compelled testimony" under s. 13 of the Charter, thus protected from use in subsequent criminal proceedings.

Balancing the parent's Charter rights against the children's right to timely resolution in protection matters, the court dismissed the Respondent Father's request for an adjournment of the summary judgment motion pending the criminal trial.

The Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services (Society) brought a motion for summary judgment to terminate an interim supervision order, withdraw their protection application, and dismiss the parents' Answers and Plans of Care.

The respondent mother and maternal grandmother consented, but the respondent father opposed, seeking access and custody for the paternal grandmother.

The court granted the Society's motion, finding no genuine issue for trial, emphasizing the children's best interests and their strong, consistent views to remain with their mother and not re-establish a relationship with their father.

The court found the children could be adequately protected without further Society intervention, particularly through a Voluntary Service Agreement with the mother.

The Mother (B.RP) brought a motion seeking the return of her child, L.D., into her temporary care under the supervision of Dnaagdawenmag Binnoojiiyag Child and Family Services (the Agency).

The child had been removed in January 2019 due to the Mother's mental health and drug addiction issues.

Despite the Mother's significant progress in sobriety and treatment, the Agency opposed the immediate return, citing long-standing concerns, limited recent access, and two concerning incidents during prior overnight visits.

The ongoing COVID-19 crisis further complicated the matter, as the Agency had suspended face-to-face access and lacked resources to monitor overnight visits.

The court found insufficient evidence to immediately return the child, concluding there was a real possibility of harm and that a supervision order could not adequately protect the child, especially given the pandemic's limitations.

The child had been residing stably with the Maternal Grandfather for over a year.

The Applicant Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a s. 57.1 custody order placing the child with the father, K.M., without Society supervision, along with supervised access for the mother and maternal grandparents, and a restraining order against the mother.

The mother and maternal grandparents opposed, seeking a change in primary residence or increased access.

The court denied the Society's request for a s. 57.1 order, finding that continued Society supervision was necessary due to unresolved issues regarding the child's counselling, the father's criminal record, bruising incidents, and concerns about the father encouraging contact with the mother.

The court ordered continued supervision for one year, maintained the mother's access, increased the maternal grandparents' access, and issued a permanent restraining order against the mother.