John Bland

Following a motion where the applicant father was overwhelmingly successful in obtaining primary residence of the children, he sought full recovery costs of $9,930.

The respondent mother argued she could only afford $1,500 due to her limited financial circumstances and receipt of Legal Aid.

The court found the mother's conduct unreasonable but not rising to the level of bad faith required for full recovery.

The court held that while ability to pay is a factor, it cannot shield a litigant from the consequences of unreasonable behaviour, nor is the receipt of Legal Aid a relevant factor in determining costs.

Costs were fixed at $6,000.

The Children's Aid Society sought an order for extended society care without access for two children who had been in care for 27 months.

The mother sought the return of the children or joint care with the maternal grandmother.

The court first determined that the children were First Nations but had no identified band.

The court found the children continued to be in need of protection due to the mother's transience, untreated mental health issues, and high-conflict behaviour.

Concluding that no less disruptive alternatives were viable, the court ordered extended society care.

Access was denied as it was not in the children's best interests and would likely impair adoption opportunities.

In a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, several extended family members brought a motion seeking party status to advance a kinship placement plan.

The court applied the test for adding parties established in Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex v. H.(S.), considering the child’s best interests, delay, necessity for determination of issues, and whether the proposed party could advance a viable care plan.

The court found that the proposed caregiver being assessed for placement had a legal interest and that her participation was necessary to determine the appropriate placement of the child.

However, other relatives who supported the plan but were only in a transitional caregiving role were not necessary parties.

The court therefore granted party status to the proposed caregiver only and dismissed the motion as it related to the other relatives.

In a child protection trial under the Child and Family Services Act, the society sought Crown wardship without access for an infant apprehended at birth due to serious concerns about the mother’s substance abuse, instability, and inability to parent.

The mother did not attend trial and presented no evidence, while the society filed multiple affidavits detailing longstanding addiction, inconsistent contact with the child, prior child protection involvement, and the absence of viable family placements.

The court found the child in need of protection under s. 37(2) and concluded that returning the child to the mother would pose a significant risk of physical and emotional harm.

Given statutory time limits on society wardship and the mother’s failure to address her issues, Crown wardship was determined to be the only safe and realistic option.

The court also terminated access, finding no evidence of a beneficial and meaningful relationship that would satisfy the test under s. 59(2.1).

In a child protection proceeding, the Children’s Aid Society brought a motion under s. 54 of the Child and Family Services Act seeking an order requiring the respondents to undergo a risk assessment by a specified expert.

The court dismissed the motion and later considered whether costs should be awarded against the Society.

The mother sought costs alleging unreasonable conduct by the Society, including insufficient evidence for the assessment and procedural unfairness.

Applying the principles governing costs against child protection agencies under the Family Law Rules and the Courts of Justice Act, the court held that although the Society was unsuccessful, it had acted cautiously and in good faith in pursuing the assessment given the history of domestic violence and child protection concerns.

The court concluded the Society’s conduct was not patently unfair or indefensible and declined to award costs.

The Children’s Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment within a child protection application seeking Crown wardship without access for a young child apprehended at birth due to parental substance abuse, instability, and neglect.

The court reviewed extensive evidence of the mother’s long-standing drug addiction, housing instability, missed access visits, and failure to cooperate with services, as well as the father’s extensive criminal history and repeated incarceration.

Applying Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules and the Child and Family Services Act, the court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and that the parents’ evidence did not establish a realistic possibility that the child could safely be returned to their care.

Considering the statutory timelines and the child’s need for permanence, the court concluded that Crown wardship was the only appropriate disposition.

The court also held that neither parent established that continued access would be beneficial and meaningful to the child.

The Children's Aid Society applied for a finding that a 9-year-old child was in need of protection and sought an order for Crown wardship without access for the purpose of adoption.

The mother opposed the application, seeking return of the child, access if wardship was ordered, or a kinship placement with a relative.

The court found the child in need of protection due to the mother's history of substance abuse, violent behavior, and failure to provide adequate care, including exposing the child to squalid living conditions and domestic violence.

The court rejected the proposed kinship placement, finding the relative not credible.

The court ordered Crown wardship without access, concluding that access would not be beneficial and would impair the child's opportunities for adoption.