Karen Leef

The applicant, who was not the biological father of the child, brought a motion for interim access.

The parties cohabited for six months and the applicant had not seen the child for 20 months.

The respondent mother opposed access, arguing it negatively impacted the child's behaviour and that the child had no memory of the applicant.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate that resuming contact would be in the child's best interests, noting the potential for disruption to the child's current family unit.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa sought summary judgment for Crown wardship of the child K.T.B. with no access for the natural parents, J.T. (mother) and J.B. (father).

The motion was brought under Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules and sections 1, 37, and 57 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The court found that the Society met its evidentiary burden, and the parents failed to present a genuine issue for trial, demonstrating a lack of insight into the child's best interests, inconsistent access, and failure to address domestic violence and mental health issues.

The court granted Crown wardship without access, emphasizing the child's need for stability and permanence.

The Children's Aid Society apprehended five children due to concerns including alleged sexual abuse, drug involvement, and unexplained injuries to one child.

While four children were returned to the mother's care under supervision, the temporary care and custody of one child, N., remained at issue.

The mother moved for N.'s return, which the father opposed due to concerns about supervision, a past grow-op, and the mother's candour.

The Society took no position on N.'s placement.

The court, applying section 51(3) of the CFSA, found no reasonable grounds to believe N. would suffer harm that could not be adequately protected by a supervision order, and ordered N.'s return to the mother and her partner under specific conditions.

The Children's Aid Society moved for summary judgment seeking Crown wardship of two young children.

The parents were facing criminal charges based on allegations by an older sibling, which led to the children's apprehension.

The Society relied heavily on hearsay evidence from the older siblings and a foster parent.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that summary judgment was not appropriate given the evidentiary deficiencies, the parents' inability to cross-examine the adult complainant, and the upcoming criminal trial.

The court ordered peremptory trial dates to be scheduled near the expiration of the statutory timeline for the children to be in care.

Following a Divisional Court order requiring reconsideration of a prior Crown wardship decision, the court conducted a full reconsideration of a child protection status review involving two young children.

The moving parties argued that the statutory definitions of “Indian” and “native person” in the Child and Family Services Act were unconstitutional and sought placement of the children with family members rather than Crown wardship.

The court rejected the constitutional challenge, finding insufficient evidentiary foundation to establish discrimination under s. 15 of the Charter and no breach of s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

On the merits, the court found that proposed family placement plans lacked sufficient indicia of permanence and stability after the children had already spent an extended period in care.

Considering the statutory best‑interests factors and the importance of permanency, the court concluded that Crown wardship with access best served the children’s interests.

In a child protection motion under the Child and Family Services Act, the child protection agency sought a temporary care and custody order pending disposition of the application, with parental access at the agency’s discretion.

The court considered allegations of parental drug use, domestic violence, and chronic school absenteeism.

While acknowledging reasonable grounds to believe there was some risk of harm due to past illegal drug use, the court found portions of the agency’s evidence—particularly anonymous allegations and claimed falsification of drug screens—lacked credibility or reliability.

The parents had recently provided negative drug tests, engaged in addiction treatment, and cooperated with the agency.

Applying the principle that intervention must be the least disruptive placement consistent with child protection, the court returned the child to the parents subject to a supervision order and strict conditions.

The parties reached an agreement on all issues except the choice of school for their four-year-old child and the resulting parenting schedule.

The applicant mother sought to have the child attend a public school near her residence, while the respondent father sought a Catholic school near his residence.

Relying on the recommendations of the Office of the Children's Lawyer, the court found it was in the child's best interests to attend the school near the mother's residence to minimize travel and transitions, and to allow the child to attend the same school as her half-sister.

The court ordered that the child reside primarily with the mother during the school week, with the father having access three out of four weekends.

The children's aid society sought an order granting custody of a four-year-old child to the maternal grandmother, with access to the parents.

The father initially sought sole custody but conceded during the trial that the grandmother should have custody.

The court found that the father lacked insight into his parenting role and exhibited behaviors that undermined the grandmother and the mother.

Applying the best interests of the child factors under the Child and Family Services Act, the court granted custody to the grandmother and ordered that the father's access be at the grandmother's discretion.

The father was also ordered not to return to court on custody and access issues without proof of meaningful psychotherapy.

The Children's Aid Society sought an order for Crown wardship for the purpose of adoption for two young children.

The mother and maternal grandparents proposed competing plans for the children's return or placement.

The court found the mother had not demonstrated the necessary stability, having struggled with substance abuse and inconsistent access.

The grandparents' plan was also rejected due to their inability to set boundaries with the mother and physical limitations in managing the children.

The court ordered Crown wardship for both children but granted the grandparents supervised access, finding it would not impair future adoption opportunities.

On a temporary care and custody motion under s. 51 of the Child and Family Services Act, the child protection agency sought an order placing a child in the temporary care and custody of the mother under the Society’s supervision with multiple conditions.

The child had previously been apprehended due to domestic violence exposure, concerns about the condition of the home, and questions regarding the mother’s mental health and cooperation with the Society.

The father opposed the motion and sought to maintain Society care while pursuing access.

The court applied the statutory test under s. 51(3) and emphasized the CFSA’s paramount objective of promoting the best interests, protection, and well-being of children while favouring the least disruptive course consistent with safety.

Finding that the child could be adequately protected through a supervision order and that the mother had taken meaningful steps to address protection concerns, the court ordered the child returned to the mother’s care subject to extensive conditions.

The children's aid society brought a motion to vary a temporary consent access order to require the father's access to his one-year-old child be supervised.

The motion was prompted by the discovery that the father had left the child unattended while he went to the store.

The mother supported the motion, while the father sought to maintain unsupervised access.

The court found that the father's actions demonstrated substandard parenting and justified a change in the access order.

However, to maintain the positive relationship between the father and child, the court ordered that access be supervised by the paternal grandparents, with the father permitted up to four hours of unsupervised access during the day.

A child protection motion under the Child and Family Services Act sought temporary care and custody of three children following their apprehension from the maternal grandmother’s home.

The society relied on concerns regarding unsafe home conditions, the continued presence of the grandmother’s adult son contrary to prior warnings, and developmental progress observed while the children were in foster care.

The court found the society met the statutory burden under s. 64(8) of the CFSA only in relation to the youngest child, whose health and developmental improvements and attachment in foster care demonstrated that remaining in care was in her best interests.

The evidence did not establish that the two older children’s best interests required continued placement in care, particularly given their lengthy residence with the grandmother and improvements to the home environment.

The court therefore ordered temporary care and custody of the youngest child to the society, while placing the two older children with the grandmother subject to supervision and conditions.