Karine Jackson

This is a child protection summary judgment motion brought by the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa seeking a finding that three children (S.L., J.L., N.C.) are in need of protection and an order for extended society care.

The parents contested the grounds for protection and the disposition.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the children being in need of protection under multiple subsections of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, and ordered extended society care.

However, the court found a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the parents' access to the children.

The Applicant brought a summary judgment motion seeking orders for sole decision-making responsibility, primary residence of the children, child support, Section 7 expenses, and equalization.

The Respondent had a history of breaching court orders, criminal harassment, and intentional under-employment.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial, imputed income to the Respondent, and ordered child support, arrears, fixed Section 7 contributions, and an equalization payment to the Applicant.

The Respondent was granted supervised parenting time with conditions for review.

The Children's Aid Society (CAS) brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order for extended society care for the child, G., for purposes of adoption.

The respondent mother, K.S., opposed the motion, arguing the evidentiary record was insufficient.

The court found that the child remained in need of protection due to the mother's enduring mental and physical health challenges, inability to provide self-care, lack of insight into protection concerns, inconsistent access attendance, and an unsafe home environment.

The court granted the CAS's motion for extended society care, concluding that no less intrusive disposition was in the child's best interests, but also ordered that the mother shall have access to the child, and the child shall have access to the mother, with the specifics at the Society's discretion.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection and an order granting joint custody to the father and maternal grandmother, with supervised access to the mother.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking the return of the child to her care.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding the need for protection, citing the mother's emotional dysregulation, conflictual relationships, and lack of cooperation with the applicant.

The court also found no genuine issue regarding the disposition, granting joint custody to the father and maternal grandmother with primary residence to the father.

However, the court found a genuine issue for trial regarding the extent and supervision of the mother's access, ordering a mini-trial to resolve that issue.

The Children's Aid Society sought an order for temporary care and custody of three children with their respective fathers, following a warrantless apprehension due to the mother's breach of a previous supervision order (pets in home) and non-cooperation with a child protection worker.

The mother sought the children's return.

The court found the mother not credible, upheld the warrantless apprehension as justified due to her non-cooperation and the prior deplorable state of the home, and determined that the risk to the children in the mother's care outweighed the emotional harm of separation.

The motion for temporary care and custody with the fathers was granted.

Following a decision on a motion to change and a motion for withdrawal in child protection proceedings, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The Applicant Mother sought substantial indemnity costs against the Respondent Father, while the Father sought costs against both the Mother and the Children's Aid Society.

The court denied costs in the child protection proceedings, noting that costs in such matters require more than mere success.

However, the court awarded costs to the Applicant Mother for the motion to change in the divorce proceedings, as she was the substantially successful party.

The court fixed costs at an elevated partial indemnity rate of $28,319.46, sanctioning the Respondent Father for his unreasonable behaviour in filing voluminous and unnecessary materials.