Justice K.S. Neill

Application by a family physician for an order committing a 17-year-old youth with a history of traumatic brain injury and complex mental health issues to a secure treatment program at Syl Apps for 180 days.

The youth initially opposed the application but subsequently consented after meeting with the Clinical Director.

The court found that all six statutory criteria under s. 164 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act were satisfied: the youth had a mental disorder (Oppositional Defiant Disorder, Intermittent Explosive Disorder, likely ADHD, and borderline intellectual functioning); had caused or attempted to cause serious bodily harm within 45 days preceding the application; had made substantial threats of self-harm within the preceding 12 months; the secure treatment program would be effective; appropriate treatment was available at Syl Apps; and no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate.

The court granted the order for the maximum 180-day commitment period.

A status review application concerning four children of Métis heritage who were apprehended due to neglect, domestic violence, parental cognitive limitations, and transiency.

The parents sought return of the two older children to the mother's care subject to a supervision order, with the father residing separately.

The court found the children in continuing need of protection and determined that extended society care was in their best interests.

The court ordered the two older children placed in extended care with the culturally matched Métis foster family, with minimum three face-to-face visits annually with the parents as access holders.

The applicant mother brought a motion for contempt against the respondent father for denying her access to the two minor children (ages 15 and 13, both with special needs) beginning in March 2020, citing COVID-19 concerns.

The father had also allegedly failed to facilitate electronic communication and discussed litigation with the children.

The court found that neither parent believed the other posed a health risk.

The parties consented to a temporary without prejudice order reinstating the access schedule, with both parents to encourage the children to attend visits and communicate electronically at least three times weekly.

The court emphasized the need for parental cooperation during the pandemic crisis.

A motion to change custody and access arrangements in a high-conflict family law case involving two young children.

The mother sought sole custody and to vary the father's mid-week overnight access, while the father sought sole custody with the mother having alternate weekend access.

The court found a material change in circumstances since the last order and conducted a fresh inquiry into the children's best interests.

Despite the Office of the Children's Lawyer recommending that the father have sole custody, the court ordered that the children remain in the primary care of the mother with substantially expanded access to the father, including three weekends per month during the school year and equal time sharing during summer and holidays.

The court imposed a joint custody arrangement structured as parallel parenting to preserve the balance of power between the parties and prevent further marginalization of the father's role.