Keith Randall Newell

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking to have the respondent father found in contempt of several court orders, including alleged failures to administer medication to their child, transporting the child on an e-bike, producing an accurate income valuation report, and complying with costs orders.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding that the applicant had not proven the alleged breaches beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the required standard for contempt.

The decision clarified that a failure to comply with a payment order is excluded as a ground for contempt under the Family Law Rules and that the orders regarding medical decision-making and the valuation report were not sufficiently clear and unequivocal to support a contempt finding.

The Children's Aid Society of the Niagara Region brought a motion for summary judgment to place two children, A. (5 years old) and H. (17 months old), in extended society care for adoption without parental access.

The Society cited parental instability, substance misuse, and lack of engagement.

The mother (M.B.) and father (D.J.) opposed, arguing for a trial and asserting the Society had not provided adequate support.

The court found the children were in continued need of protection and ordered extended society care for both, noting that statutory timelines for interim care had been exceeded.

However, the court found genuine issues for trial regarding access for M.B. and D.J., as the Society failed to provide sufficient evidence that access would impair adoption opportunities or was not in the children's best interests.

Access for J.S.J.M. (H.'s father) was denied due to complete lack of involvement.

This trial concerned the nature of a father's access to his 8-year-old daughter, sole custody with the maternal grandmother, and child support.

The father sought unsupervised access, while the grandmother requested continued supervised access at a centre.

The court, applying the "best interests of the child" test, found that the father, despite cognitive limitations, was capable of parenting in a secondary role with support.

The court ordered expanded access for the father, transitioning from supervised by his parents to monitored, with a future review for unsupervised overnight access.

Counselling for the child and parties was also ordered, and child support payments were adjusted and made retroactive.

The applicant child protection agency brought a summary judgment motion seeking a Crown wardship order without access for the purpose of adoption.

The respondents each filed plans of care proposing that the child be placed in their respective care under supervision.

The court found overwhelming evidence of the mother’s long-standing inability to parent, including prior Crown wardship orders for other children and expert evidence regarding cognitive limitations.

The father’s proposed plan of care was also rejected due to significant mental health issues, criminal history, substance use, lack of cooperation with the agency, and failure to recognize the child’s developmental delays.

The court held that the respondents failed to raise any genuine issue requiring a trial and granted summary judgment making the child a Crown ward without access.

In a child protection proceeding, the society sought Crown wardship without access in relation to a young child who had been apprehended due to malnourishment and remained in foster care with significant special needs.

The parents had been given time under a prior temporary wardship order to become capable of caring for the child but had not demonstrated progress.

The mother failed to file an answer or plan of care, and the father’s proposed plan relied on returning the child to the care of both parents without addressing the mother’s deficits or the child’s significant needs.

Pending the status review, the court considered the child’s best interests and the need for stability and permanency.

The court ordered that parental access be suspended temporarily to minimize disruption to the child and encourage timely participation in the proceeding.