Judith Hupe

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a motion for summary judgment in a child protection matter concerning E.P., seeking a final custody order for the mother, N.P., with sole decision-making authority, and supervised access for the father, E.P., at a supervised access center.

The mother consented to the Society's request, while the father sought joint decision-making and unsupervised access, and the paternal grandmother sought to supervise the father's access.

The court granted the Society's motion, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding custody to the mother and supervised access for the father at a supervised access facility, citing the father's extensive criminal history, periods of incarceration, and the need for a neutral third party to supervise given the high conflict between the parents.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss openness applications filed by the mother (J.S.R.) and adult sister (H.S.R.) concerning two children, E. and R., who were in the Society's extended care and subsequently adopted.

The court considered the children's best interests, their consistent views against contact with the applicants, and the requirement for consent for children over 12 under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The motion was granted, dismissing the openness applications and ordering openness only according to the children's wishes as reflected in minutes signed by the Office of the Children's Lawyer and the Society.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that S.L. was in need of protection and placement in extended Society care for adoption.

The mother consented to the plan, but the father opposed, seeking S.L.'s return to his care.

The court, relying on previous judicial findings regarding the parents' violent relationship and non-compliance with court orders, found that the father had not raised a genuine issue for trial.

The court determined that S.L. was in need of protection due to the risk of emotional harm from exposure to domestic violence and that adoption was in her best interests, ensuring permanency, cultural connection, and stability.

The Society's motion was granted for S.L., while the father's opposition was dismissed.

The Respondent Mother, J.K., sought an order for costs against the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa for alleged delays in returning her child, X.K., to her temporary care and custody.

The Society opposed this request and brought its own motion for costs.

The court dismissed the Mother's motion for costs, finding that the evidentiary record did not support the conclusion that the Society acted in a patently unfair and indefensible manner, despite some initial delays in worker assignment.

The court emphasized the special considerations for First Nations, Inuit, and Métis children under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, but concluded that the Mother had not demonstrated sufficient stability for an earlier return of the child.

The Society's motion for costs was adjourned.

The Children's Aid Society sought an order for extended society care for two Indigenous children, S.L. and L.E.L., due to ongoing exposure to domestic violence and the parents' non-compliance with court orders.

The parents, E.L. (mother) and I.O. (father), opposed this, seeking the children's return.

The court found the children remained in need of protection, citing the high risk of domestic violence and the parents' inability to adhere to supervision orders.

Despite acknowledging the importance of Indigenous heritage and the historical harms of assimilation, the court prioritized the children's safety and stability.

Extended society care was granted, with the court retaining jurisdiction over access to ensure meaningful contact with birth parents and cultural preservation.

The Father brought a motion for unsupervised access to his two daughters, whose access had been supervised since June 2014.

The Children's Aid Society (CAS) proposed a discretionary, staged progression, while the Father sought a more rapid, automatic transition to unsupervised visits.

The court noted the Father's recent move, the lack of oversight in his proposal, and past issues with negative communication about the Mother and uncooperative behaviour with CAS staff.

The court adopted a structured, 10-week access progression plan proposed by the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL), with specific conditions for missed visits and ongoing oversight.

The court also provided suggestions for subsequent access stages, contingent on CAS approval of the Father's new residence and cohabitant.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa sought summary judgment to place three children (E.S., J.S., R.S.) in the legal custody of their maternal grandparents, with discretionary access for the parents.

The mother opposed, seeking the children's return or a supervision order.

The court dismissed the Society's motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues for trial.

These issues included the admissibility and apparent contradiction of medical evidence regarding the children's initial physical condition and developmental delays, and a significant change in the mother's bail conditions which allowed her to present a plan of care.

The court emphasized that summary judgment requires a full evidentiary record and should not be granted where material facts are in dispute or credibility is an issue.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the child, A.J.M., was in need of protection and an order for Crown wardship for adoption.

The child's mother, N.J.-L., opposed the motion, while the father, B.M., did not participate.

The court applied principles from the Family Law Rules and Rules of Civil Procedure, including Hryniak v. Mauldin, in the child protection context.

The court found that A.J.M. was in need of protection due to the parents' history of instability, substance abuse, domestic violence, and inconsistent engagement with the Society and access visits.

The mother's efforts to improve her parenting skills and stabilize her life were deemed insufficient and too late.

The father demonstrated no capacity to parent.

The court granted Crown wardship for adoption, terminating both parents' access, emphasizing the child's best interests and the need for timely, permanent planning.

The Ottawa Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that the child, PZ, was in need of protection and an order for Crown wardship without parental access.

The biological mother, L.K.M.-B., opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that genuine issues for trial remained regarding the mother's parental capacity, her support network, and the evolving nature of her relationship with the child, particularly given her young age at the child's birth and recent efforts to prioritize the child's needs.

The court also noted concerns about the reliance on hearsay evidence by the applicant.