John Alexander Bland

The Children's Aid Society of Hamilton brought a motion to terminate a supervision order concerning a child who had suffered severe, unexplained head injuries as an infant.

Despite positive developments in the parents' care and compliance with supervision, the court dismissed the motion, deeming it premature given the horrific nature of the initial injuries and the unresolved culpability of the parents.

The existing supervision order was continued, emphasizing the court's responsibility to protect vulnerable children in cases of severe abuse.

The applicant father sought a temporary variation of a final parenting order, requesting primary residence and decision-making authority for the children, citing the respondent mother's manipulative behavior, false allegations, and obstruction of the children's therapeutic services.

The respondent mother opposed, bringing a cross-motion for OCL involvement.

The court found a material change in circumstances and that the existing equal time-sharing arrangement was intolerable due to the high conflict and the children's deteriorating emotional and developmental issues.

The court granted the father primary residence and decision-making authority, finding the mother's lack of insight and self-centered decisions detrimental to the children's best interests, and declined OCL involvement.

The mother (A.H.) brought a motion for temporary care of her child (D.), seeking placement with her under supervision or expanded access.

The Children's Aid Society of Hamilton (CAS) opposed, seeking continued care and a finding that the child was not First Nations, Inuk, or Métis.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer supported the mother.

The court found no reasonable grounds to believe the child would suffer harm if returned to the mother under supervision.

Applying the two-part test under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, the court ordered the child's return to the mother's care via an eight-week transitional schedule with specific supervision terms.

The finding regarding the child's Indigenous status was unopposed and granted.

The Children's Aid Society of Hamilton brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a protection finding and Crown wardship without access for the child J.B. The Mother, P.B., opposed the motion, arguing she deserved a chance to parent.

The court reviewed the Mother's history, including four other children not in her care, concerns about substance abuse, domestic violence, lack of follow-through with counselling, and missed access visits.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, determined the child was in need of protection under sections 37(2)(b)(i) and (g) of the CFSA, and ordered Crown wardship without access, concluding that access would impair the child's future opportunities for adoption.

In a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, the society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection and an order for Crown wardship with no access.

The child had been apprehended at birth and had significant developmental and medical needs, while evidence established that the mother had severe cognitive limitations and limited support resources.

Applying Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules, the court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and that the society had established a prima facie case that the child was in need of protection.

The court further found that less intrusive alternatives were inadequate and that permanence was urgently required given the child’s needs.

The statutory presumption against access to Crown wards was not rebutted because there was insufficient evidence that access would be beneficial and meaningful to the child or would not impair adoption prospects.