John Kukurin

This is a child protection motion for summary judgment under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Children's Aid Society sought a finding that a one-year-old child (T.) is in need of protection, a disposition order, and a determination regarding parental access.

The court found the child in need of protection based on risk of physical harm from the mother's chronic drug addiction, domestic violence involvement, and inability to provide stable care.

The court declined to make a finding on emotional harm grounds due to insufficient evidence.

For disposition, the court ordered the child remain in the care and custody of the paternal grandmother (B.D.) subject to a supervision order by the society for nine months, rather than granting the deemed custody order sought by B.D. The court adjourned the access issue for trial, finding a genuine issue requiring adjudication regarding the scope and conditions of parental access.

This is a decision under section 90(2)(b) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA) regarding the identification of a child's First Nations status and band affiliation in a Status Review Application.

The child, age 6, was previously identified under the Child and Family Services Act (CFSA) as not being an Indian or native child.

The court determined that the child is a First Nations child based on the mother's identification of the child as such, and identified the child's band as Michipicoten Band based on the mother's indication that the child identifies with that band through maternal family ties.

The Children's Aid Society of Algoma brought a motion seeking a determination under s.90(2)(b) and s.2(4) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA) as to whether a one-year-old child (L.A.) is a First Nation child and, if so, whether Batchewana First Nation should be added as a party respondent.

The child's mother stated the child was not Native and not eligible for band registration.

The father indicated he was pursuing Native Status for himself and had a paternal grandfather who was a member of Batchewana band.

The court initially found the child was not a First Nation child but reopened the motion for additional evidence.

The court ultimately found the child was a First Nation child under the CYFSA based on information demonstrating a connection to Batchewana band through the father's eligibility for membership and the paternal grandfather's band membership.

Batchewana First Nation band representative was added as a party respondent.

This is a child protection motion under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act involving four children and two separate applications.

Application No. 1 concerns three non-Indigenous boys (G., P., and C.) with parents A.W. and M.P. who had a joint custody order.

Application No. 2 concerns an infant (B.) with mother A.W. and father J.S., a member of Batchewana First Nation.

The society sought temporary care and custody of all children.

The court found reasonable grounds for risk of harm based on domestic violence, excessive alcohol consumption, and failure to comply with safety agreements involving J.S. However, the court declined to grant full temporary care and custody to the father for the three boys, instead maintaining the existing joint custody arrangement with conditions on the mother's care.

For the infant B., the court placed her with her maternal grandmother pending consent, with supervised paternal access for J.S.

A motion by the Children's Aid Society of Algoma for production of records from the Sault Ste.

Marie Police Service, Ontario Provincial Police, and Ministry of Community Safety and Corrections regarding the respondent parents in a child protection proceeding.

The mother did not oppose production; the father opposed.

The court granted production from the Sault Ste.

Marie Police Service for the period following a prior production order, finding the relevance test under section 130 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act was met.

The court declined to order production from the other two record holders due to insufficient evidence of relevance.

The Children's Aid Society of Algoma brought a motion seeking three orders: (1) withdrawal of a prior motion dated June 8, 2018; (2) variation of temporary care and custody of three children from the society to their maternal grandmother; and (3) continuation of existing interim parental access orders.

The court found that the applicant society did not require a court order to withdraw its motion, as parties have the right to withdraw applications subject to cost consequences.

The court granted the variation of temporary care and custody from the society to the maternal grandmother under section 94(2)(c) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, as this placement with kin was preferable to placement with the society and would remove a legal impediment to the grandmother obtaining a deemed custody order.

The court found the claim regarding continuation of access orders to be unnecessary as existing orders continue until varied or superseded.

This is a decision on the identification of a child under section 90(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA).

The child was previously identified under the former Child and Family Services Act (CFSA), but re-identification was necessary under the new CYFSA framework.

The court examined the statutory requirements for identifying a child as a First Nations, Inuk, or Métis child, including membership in a band and identification with a band or community.

The court found that the child was not a First Nations child, as the child was not on any band membership list and neither parent had indicated the band with which the child identifies.

This is a child protection proceeding under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA) concerning maternal access to a three-year-old child (Amelia) who was found to be in need of protection and made a crown ward (now extended society care).

The trial addressed only the issue of maternal access following a prior summary judgment motion that established the child's need for protection.

The mother sought continued access to the child, but the court found that the mother failed to meet the best interests test, particularly in demonstrating that the relationship was beneficial and meaningful to the child.

The court terminated all access.

In a child protection status review proceeding, the court determined whether a four-year-old child should be placed in temporary care and custody with a non-parent third party (the father's ex-girlfriend) or with the Children's Aid Society in foster care.

The father had breached multiple conditions of a supervision order, including being intoxicated while caring for the child.

The court rejected placement with the paternal grandmother due to jurisdictional concerns (she resided in Michigan), rejected placement with the mother due to her unsuitability as a caregiver, and ultimately ordered placement with the ex-girlfriend subject to a supervision order by the society.

The court emphasized the statutory preference for kinship placements over society care and the importance of maintaining the child's connections with significant persons in his life.

The respondent father brought a motion to change seeking termination of a child support order made on consent on April 23, 2014.

The applicant mother failed to respond and did not appear.

The father alleged that the two children, twin boys born August 16, 1999, were no longer enrolled in full-time education, had withdrawn from parental control, and no longer resided with the mother.

The court considered whether to proceed under the Family Law Rules or the Family Law Act section 44 procedure.

Finding that the prerequisites of section 44 were met (respondent failed to appear, resided more than 150 kilometres away, and issues could be adequately determined), the court proceeded under section 44.

The court made an interim suspension order effective May 31, 2018, and a provisional termination order effective August 16, 2017, pending confirmation by another court.

This is a costs decision in a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act.

The respondent father sought costs against two child protection societies: Kunuwanimano Child and Family Services and North Eastern Ontario Family and Children's Services (NEOFACS).

The father claimed costs of $90,116.51 on a full recovery basis for a 14-day trial.

The court found that NEOFACS was not liable for costs as it was not the applicant during the trial period.

However, the court found that Kunuwanimano engaged in unfair and unreasonable conduct, including failure to properly investigate the father's Aboriginal connection claim, failure to follow up on critical evidence, and unilateral restrictions on parental access.

The court awarded costs to the father against Kunuwanimano, but reduced the award by two-thirds due to the father's own misconduct in misrepresenting his Aboriginal status to facilitate the transfer of the file to Kunuwanimano.

The final costs award was $31,500 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

A status review application under the Child and Family Services Act concerning two children previously found to be in need of protection due to parental neglect.

The Children's Aid Society sought to place the children with their father in Saskatchewan subject to a supervision order, with conditions for maternal access.

The mother opposed the application and sought the return of the children to her care.

The court determined that the children's best interests were served by remaining in the care of their father, and made a six-month supervision order with provisions for maternal access to be agreed upon by the parties.

This is an evidentiary ruling in a status review proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act concerning the admissibility of the views and wishes of two children (ages 14 and 11) who are represented by counsel from the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The central issue is whether hearsay statements reflecting the children's residential preferences, expressed to their legal representative and other witnesses, are admissible at trial.

The children are not being called to testify.

The mother opposes admission of this evidence, while the father, the society, and the children's counsel support it.

The court rules that such evidence is admissible under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule, as it reflects the children's mental state regarding their residential preferences, which is a mandatory consideration under the statute.

A motion for summary judgment brought by a Children's Aid Society in a status review application involving two children (ages 8 and 4) who were previously found to be in need of protection due to neglect by their mother.

The mother opposed the motion.

The court granted the society's motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issues requiring trial.

The court ordered crown wardship of both children with placement in the care of the Children's Aid Society, to be placed with their maternal grandparents.

The court also ordered supervised maternal access while denying access to both fathers.

The accused was charged with impaired care or control of a motor vehicle and failure or refusal to provide a breath sample.

The Crown's evidence established that the accused was found intoxicated in the driver's seat of his vehicle, which was stuck in a snowbank at a bar parking lot.

The accused's defence relied on alleged cognitive impairment from a beating he received the previous day in New Liskeard.

The court rejected the accused's credibility, finding his selective memory and lack of corroborating evidence problematic.

The court found the accused guilty on both charges, determining that he had failed to rebut the presumption of impaired care or control and that his refusal to provide a breath sample was deliberate and intentional.

The accused was charged with trafficking in cocaine under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence from an undercover operation (Project O'Tamper) targeting a steroid dealer.

The Crown alleged the accused supplied cocaine to the target through a brief, unobserved encounter in a parking lot.

The court found the evidence created strong suspicion but did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted due to insufficient evidence directly connecting him to possession or trafficking of cocaine, and the existence of reasonable alternative inferences consistent with innocence.

A child protection motion for summary judgment brought by the Children's Aid Society seeking a finding that a child is in need of protection under section 37(2)(b)(i) of the Child and Family Services Act, an order for crown wardship, and an order for no maternal access.

The child was apprehended at birth and had been in foster care for approximately two years with only supervised access to the mother.

The court found that the mother's severe intellectual limitations, history of unsuccessful parenting with three prior children, personality difficulties, and inability to comply with supervision orders created a risk of physical harm.

The court granted the motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring trial on the grounds for protection, disposition, or access.

This is a costs decision arising from a motion for summary judgment brought by the respondent mother to dismiss the applicant father's Motion to Change claims regarding custody and access.

The mother was successful in the summary judgment motion, which dismissed the father's claims on the basis that he failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances—a prerequisite for varying custody or access orders.

The court awarded costs to the successful party (the mother) in the amount of $4,000 plus GST, payable within sixty days.

The Children's Aid Society of Algoma brought a motion to transfer carriage of a child protection proceeding to Nogdawindamin Family and Community Services, a newly designated native children's aid society.

The child subject to the proceeding (H.S.) was identified as non-status and not an Indian or native child under the Child and Family Services Act.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that Nogdawindamin CAS lacked jurisdiction under its ministerial designation to provide services in this case.

The court held that jurisdictional compliance with the Minister's designation cannot be overridden by efficiency or duplication of services arguments, and that the court has authority to determine whether a society has jurisdiction to be the applicant in a child protection proceeding.

The Children's Aid Society of Algoma brought a motion to transfer carriage of a child protection status review proceeding to Nogdawindamin Family and Community Services, a newly designated native children's aid society.

The motion involved determining whether Nogdawindamin CAS had jurisdiction under its ministerial designation to act as the applicant society.

The court examined the complex jurisdictional issues arising from the designation, including territorial jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction based on aboriginal status, and the conditions imposed on the designation.

The court granted the motion, finding that Nogdawindamin CAS had jurisdiction to carry out its mandate as a children's aid society in this case involving an Indian child identified as a member of one of the seven listed First Nations.