Jillian C. Bowman

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 applicant Society brought a temporary care hearing regarding three children after the respondent stepfather was charged with sexually assaulting his stepdaughter.

The stepfather sought shared care of his two biological children, arguing they were in his charge prior to intervention and were not at risk.

The court found the children were in the mother's sole charge when the Society intervened, as police had already removed the stepfather.

The court held there were reasonable grounds to believe the younger children were at risk of harm, ordering that they remain with the mother and that the stepfather have only supervised access.

A restraining order against the stepfather was also continued.

This trial addressed complex family law issues including joint custody, primary residence, decision-making authority, child support, spousal support, and joint debts for the parties' daughter.

The court awarded joint custody, with primary residence to the mother, and established a partial parallel parenting regime where the father has final decision-making authority for medical issues and the mother for educational issues.

Child support was ordered from the father, and spousal support was awarded to the mother for a limited period based on compensatory and non-compensatory grounds, considering her MS diagnosis and employment interruptions.