substance abuse

The applicant father and respondent mother both brought motions regarding parenting time for their two-year-old child.

The father sought unsupervised parenting time, while the mother sought professionally supervised contact due to the father's absence and alleged substance abuse.

The court ordered temporary supervised parenting time, finding that the father and child were essentially strangers.

However, the court rejected the need for a professional centre, allowing the paternal grandparents and aunt to supervise the visits at the paternal home, subject to conditions including abstinence from drugs and alcohol.

The Children's Aid Society brought a child protection application regarding a 7-year-old child.

The court found the mother lacked credibility regarding her severe substance abuse issues, domestic violence instigation, and failure to comply with court orders, including driving while prohibited.

The court found the child to be in need of protection due to the risk of physical and emotional harm from the mother.

The child was ordered to remain in the care of the father for six months under CAS supervision, with the mother granted specified supervised access.

The applicant father and respondent mother both sought sole custody of their five-year-old child.

The father had taken the child from the mother's care following a period where the mother struggled with substance abuse.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer recommended sole custody to the mother, noting her successful rehabilitation, stable housing, and the father's failure to facilitate access.

The court agreed, awarding sole custody to the mother and granting the father specified access.

The court also imputed minimum wage income to the intentionally unemployed father and ordered him to pay child support.

The Children's Aid Society was involved with a special needs child who had been placed in the legal custody of a kin caregiver.

The sole issue at trial was the frequency of the mother's supervised access visits.

The mother sought weekly access, while the Society and the kin caregiver proposed access once every three weeks due to the child's fragile health, strict routine requirements, and the mother's history of inconsistent attendance and alcohol use.

Applying the best interests of the child test under the Child and Family Services Act, the court ordered supervised access once every three weeks for two hours, with strict conditions regarding the mother's sobriety and attendance.

The offender was convicted of second degree murder by a jury for the manual strangulation of a disabled drug dealer.

The Crown sought a parole ineligibility period of 12 to 15 years, while the defence sought the statutory minimum of 10 years.

The court considered the aggravating factors, including the breach of trust, the victim's vulnerability, and the theft of drugs and money.

The court also considered the offender's Indigenous background and the Gladue factors, which contributed to his substance abuse issues.

The court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment with a parole ineligibility period of 11 years, reducing it from 12 years to reflect the Gladue factors.

The applicant father brought a motion for interim custody and an order requiring the respondent mother to return the child's primary residence to Stratford from London.

Both parents had a history of substance abuse, but the mother had been the primary caregiver since separation and the child was flourishing in her care.

The court applied the best interests of the child test under the Children's Law Reform Act and ordered that the child remain in the primary care of the mother in London, with a parallel parenting regime and generous weekend access for the father.

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 applicant father brought a motion for interim access to the parties' three children.

The respondent mother sought to restrict access to supervised, daytime-only visits, alleging the father had substance abuse issues and had inappropriately touched one of the children.

The court found insufficient evidence to support the touching allegations or to require supervised access, but concluded that prima facie concerns regarding substance abuse justified a temporary prohibition on overnight access and conditions prohibiting alcohol and drug use prior to and during access.

The applicant mother sought sole custody, child support, and equalization in an uncontested trial after the respondent father's answer was struck.

The court granted the mother sole custody and ordered that the father's access be supervised by the paternal grandparents due to his ongoing substance abuse issues.

The court imputed the father's income at $49,920 and ordered ongoing and retroactive child support.

The mother owed an equalization payment to the father, but the court allowed her to set off the father's child support arrears and outstanding costs awards against the equalization payment, resulting in the father owing the mother the remaining balance of child support arrears.

The offender pleaded guilty to robbery of a convenience store.

The court accepted a joint submission for a 15-month custodial sentence followed by 12 months of probation.

The court noted the offender's youth, lack of prior record, genuine remorse, and the role of substance abuse, balancing these against the serious nature of the offence.

The applicant Society brought a motion for summary judgment on its status review application, seeking Crown wardship without access for two young children.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing she needed more time to stabilize her mental health and substance abuse issues.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the mother's recent relapses demonstrated an inability to provide a permanent and stable home.

The court granted the motion, making the children Crown wards with no access, prioritizing their need for a permanent and stable placement.

The applicant children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking Crown wardship of two children.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking the return of the children under a supervision order.

The court found that the mother's evidence consisted of bare denials and failed to raise a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding her history of domestic violence, substance abuse, and parenting deficits.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the court granted summary judgment, making the children Crown wards with access at the society's discretion.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a final order of Crown wardship for an 11-year-old child who had been in care for over two years.

The mother opposed the motion but filed no responding materials, while the father was noted in default.

The court applied the summary judgment framework and found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the mother's ongoing struggles with alcohol addiction and failure to complete recommended treatment programs.

The motion was granted, and Crown wardship was ordered with access provided to the mother on a regular basis, including attendance at cultural events.

The mother appealed a summary judgment order making her child a Crown ward with no access for the purposes of adoption.

The mother argued the motions judge erred by refusing to grant an adjournment to allow her to complete counselling and programs for her severe substance abuse issues.

The appeal court found no error in the exercise of discretion, noting the mother's long history of drug dependency, her failure to comply with pre-trial directions, and the statutory imperative to ensure timely permanency planning for young children.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Children's Aid Society sought a disposition order following a finding that two young children were in need of protection due to severe neglect, unsanitary living conditions, and parental substance abuse.

The mother sought the return of the children to her care, with the support of the maternal grandmother.

The court found that the mother and grandmother had failed to demonstrate any meaningful rehabilitation or ability to integrate parenting instruction, and that returning the children would expose them to an unacceptable risk of harm.

The court ordered Crown wardship for the younger child with no access order, and granted custody of the older child to the paternal grandmother, finding these dispositions to be in the children's best interests.

The appellant mother appealed a trial judge's order making her child a Crown Ward with no access for the purpose of adoption.

The mother argued the trial judge erred in assessing her mental health, housing efforts, and the quality of access visits.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the mother's ongoing mental health challenges, including auditory hallucinations, and instability posed an overwhelming risk.

Fresh evidence regarding the mother's new housing and medication was admitted but found insufficient to alter the trial judge's findings.

The Crown applied to have the offender declared a dangerous offender following his convictions for multiple violent and sexual offences against his intimate partner, including aggravated assault and sexual assault with a weapon.

The offender had a lengthy criminal history involving domestic violence, an antisocial personality disorder, and chronic substance abuse.

The court found that the offender met the criteria for a dangerous offender designation.

However, considering the offender's cognitive limitations, his expressions of remorse, and the availability of intensive treatment and supervision in the penitentiary and community, the court concluded there was a reasonable expectation that a lesser measure would adequately protect the public.

The court imposed a determinate sentence of 10 years and 1 day (after credit for pre-sentence custody) followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order.

The applicant mother and respondent father engaged in a highly conflicted six-year family law dispute over the custody and access of their two children.

The mother struggled with substance abuse and mental health issues, while the father engaged in alienating behaviour, particularly with the older child.

The court considered the admissibility of surreptitious tape recordings made by the mother, ultimately admitting them as their probative value outweighed the prejudice.

Despite the father's alienating behaviour, the court found the children were settled in his care.

The court ordered joint custody with the father having final decision-making authority and primary residence, and established a graduated access schedule for the mother.

Child support payable by the mother was reduced to zero due to her loss of employment and poverty, and the enforcement of arrears was stayed.

The Crown applied to have the offender declared a dangerous offender following his guilty plea to sexual assault.

The offender had a lengthy criminal record, including three prior sexual assaults, and was diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder and severe substance abuse issues.

The court found that the offender met the criteria for a dangerous offender designation due to his pattern of repetitive and persistent aggressive behaviour and failure to control his sexual impulses.

However, the court concluded that a lesser measure than an indeterminate sentence would adequately protect the public, imposing a determinate sentence of five years followed by a ten-year long-term supervision order.

The Children's Aid Society applied for a status review seeking Crown wardship of three children.

The parents had a history of domestic violence, substance abuse, and failure to maintain a safe and clean home environment.

Despite numerous interventions, support services, and strict safety plans, the parents repeatedly breached conditions, exposing the children to ongoing risk and neglect.

The court found that the parents were unable to change their behaviour and that returning the children to their care was impossible.

The court ordered that the children be made Crown wards with no access.