Kathryn A. Junger

This case involved urgent motions regarding the temporary relocation of children following the parents' recent separation.

The applicant father sought to prevent the children from moving from Woodstock, Ontario, while the respondent mother sought to dismiss his motion, which would allow her to relocate with the children to Manitoba.

The court found that the relocation was initially a joint family plan that was disrupted by the separation.

Considering the children's best interests, their young age, the mother's established plan in Manitoba (new home, job, school), and the father's unformulated parenting plan in Woodstock, the court permitted the temporary relocation to Manitoba.

The court also ordered interim parenting time for the father and access to information regarding the children's health, education, and welfare.

In a temporary care hearing under the Child and Family Services Act, the court determined whether three children should remain in the care of the Society or be returned to their mother's care.

The central issue was whether the mother had sole charge of the two younger children prior to intervention, or whether charge was shared with the father.

The court found that the mother's poor judgment in exposing the children to a serious drug trafficking situation, combined with her lack of cooperation with the Society's investigation and her provision of false information, established a reasonable basis to believe the children would suffer harm if returned to her care.

A supervision order was found inadequate to mitigate the risks.

The court ordered the oldest child to remain in the Society's care with the maternal grandmother as kin-in-care placement, and the two younger children to remain with their father subject to supervision.

The respondent mother sought an urgent temporary order for unsupervised access to the child, K.L.J., and police enforcement of access.

The applicant father opposed, raising concerns about the mother's lifestyle, past conduct, and the child's development, arguing for continued supervision.

The court found the matter urgent due to the complete cessation of contact between the mother and the vulnerable child.

It rejected the father's arguments for supervised access, finding insufficient evidence of safety concerns, and ordered immediate unsupervised access for the mother on alternate weekends and a mid-week overnight.

The request for police enforcement was declined.

This is a triage endorsement during the COVID-19 pandemic concerning an urgent motion brought by the applicant father for expanded access to his two young children.

The court, having prior familiarity with the custody/access dispute, noted that the Children's Aid Society (CAS) no longer deemed full supervision necessary and could no longer provide supervision due to reduced operations, resulting in the father having no in-person access.

Given that the police investigation against the father did not result in charges and CAS's changed position, the court found the father's issues potentially urgent.

The endorsement set a schedule for the respondent mother to file responding materials and for the applicant father to file a reply, including an updated letter from CAS, before the matter is scheduled for a judge to formally determine urgency and make necessary orders.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion for immediate unsupervised alternate weekend access and a transfer of primary placement of the child, alleging denial of access and serious misconduct by the applicant father, including sexual assault.

The applicant father opposed the urgency determination.

The court, operating under COVID-19 protocols, found the matter potentially urgent due to the suspension of access, new serious allegations, and concerns about the father potentially exploiting the status quo.

The court ordered a schedule for responding materials and an updated CAS letter, setting the matter for a hearing on or after May 13, 2020, and strongly encouraged negotiation.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking to reinstate face-to-face access with his five-year-old child, which the applicant mother had suspended due to COVID-19 concerns.

The court, acting as Triage Judge, made a preliminary determination that the matter was "potentially urgent" given the suspension of a long-standing time-sharing arrangement.

The court set a schedule for the filing of responding and reply materials and provided guidance on the general principles for parenting issues during COVID-19, emphasizing cooperation and child-focused problem-solving.

The applicant father brought an ex parte motion to restore supervised access to his children after the Children's Aid Society (CAS) ceased supervision due to COVID-19.

The motion was dismissed without prejudice because the applicant failed to provide notice to the respondent's counsel and had a history of abusing ex parte proceedings.

The court found the materials voluminous, disorganized, and containing inadmissible evidence.

The court also provided general guidance for separated parents addressing access during the COVID-19 pandemic, emphasizing good faith efforts and child-focused resolutions.

During the COVID-19 suspension of court operations, the respondent father brought an urgent motion seeking a change in parenting arrangements for the 12-year-old child, A.P., requesting primary residence.

The Triage Judge acknowledged the potential urgency due to concerns about the child running away and police involvement but declined to make an immediate formal parenting order.

The matter was referred to a backup judge for further determination, with an order for the applicant mother to provide responding materials.

The appellant appealed a family court order relating to a motion to change child and spousal support obligations under Part III of the Family Law Act.

The Court of Appeal determined that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because appeals from family court decisions under Part III of the FLA must be brought to the Divisional Court, not the Court of Appeal.

The appeal was quashed on jurisdictional grounds.

This is a costs decision arising from a temporary care and custody motion in child protection proceedings.

The Children's Aid Society sought protection orders for three children due to concerns about physical and emotional harm, domestic violence exposure, and parental conflict.

The mother supported the society's position and agreed to supervision terms.

The father initially sought joint custody but changed his position at the hearing, continuing to blame the mother for parental alienation.

The court awarded costs to the mother against the father, finding his conduct was unreasonable, disproportionate, and significantly prolonged the proceedings through excessive and repetitive materials and unwarranted attacks on the mother.

A temporary care and custody hearing under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Children's Aid Society sought to place three children in the care of their respective parents subject to extensive terms of supervision.

The children had been exposed to significant parental conflict, domestic violence, physical discipline, and emotional harm.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children were at risk of both physical and emotional harm and granted the society's application with 65 detailed terms and conditions governing parental conduct, access arrangements, counselling, school attendance, and communication protocols.