Karen Veenstra

The applicant children's aid society brought a motion to vary a temporary care and custody order, seeking to remove two children from the care of the respondent mother and place them with the respondent father or in society care.

The motion was precipitated by a physical altercation between one child and the mother's roommate.

The court found a material change in circumstances for the older child, who exhibited severe behavioural issues and conflict with the mother, and ordered him to remain in the father's care.

However, the court found no material change for the younger child and ordered her returned to the mother's care, subject to strict supervision terms.

The applicant father brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the respondent mother's motion to change a final consent parenting order.

The mother sought joint decision-making responsibility and shared parenting time, arguing her mental health had improved.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, as the mother failed to provide admissible evidence of a material change in circumstances since the original order.

The summary judgment motion was granted, the motion to change was dismissed, and the mother was ordered to seek leave before commencing any further motions to change.

The applicant sought an interim parenting order for joint decision-making and graduated parenting time with the child.

The respondent mother filed a cross-motion to file a domestic contract, stay the applicant's motion, and amend the child's birth certificate to identify the biological father.

The court granted interim contact time to the applicant, ordered the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer, directed the filing of the domestic contract, and dispensed with the applicant's consent to amend the birth certificate.

The court found a strong, positive relationship between the applicant and the child, and largely dismissed the respondent mother's arguments against contact.

A Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion seeking a declaration that a child born in 2013 was in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act and should be made a ward of the Crown without access.

The child's mother consented to the order.

The father did not appear despite having answered.

The court found that the child was at risk of physical and emotional harm due to the mother's substance abuse, violent mood swings, and criminal history.

The father's extensive criminal record and incarceration history rendered him unable to provide care.

The court granted the summary judgment motion, making the child a Crown ward without access to either parent.