Kim Guillemette

A motion concerning parental access to five children in the temporary care and custody of a child protection society.

The children were removed following extremely serious abuse allegations.

The respondent parents were subsequently charged criminally and released on conditions restricting contact with the children.

The court addressed the interaction between criminal release orders and child protection orders, determining that criminal court orders prevail to the extent of any conflict.

The court then assessed appropriate access under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, balancing the risks of harm from alleged abuse against the harm of complete separation from parents.

The court ordered supervised daytime access for the mother (minimum once weekly for three hours) and more restricted supervised access for the father (once weekly for maximum 90 minutes), with no access for the oldest child who disclosed the most severe abuse.

Access remains subject to criminal court release conditions.

A binding judicial dispute resolution hearing addressing parenting time and decision-making, child support, spousal support, and division of property between unmarried parents.

The applicant sought child support for two children, one of whom was not the respondent's biological child.

The court found the respondent had demonstrated a settled intention to treat the non-biological child as his own and was therefore liable for child support.

The court determined income for both parties, calculated child support obligations, addressed section 7 expenses, dismissed the spousal support claim, denied the respondent's claim for apportionment of rental income, awarded the applicant a 20% equitable interest in a property held solely in the respondent's name, dismissed the respondent's claims regarding business interests, ordered the sale of a jointly owned rental property, and addressed the respondent's line of credit liability.

This is a costs decision in a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act.

The respondent father sought costs against two child protection societies: Kunuwanimano Child and Family Services and North Eastern Ontario Family and Children's Services (NEOFACS).

The father claimed costs of $90,116.51 on a full recovery basis for a 14-day trial.

The court found that NEOFACS was not liable for costs as it was not the applicant during the trial period.

However, the court found that Kunuwanimano engaged in unfair and unreasonable conduct, including failure to properly investigate the father's Aboriginal connection claim, failure to follow up on critical evidence, and unilateral restrictions on parental access.

The court awarded costs to the father against Kunuwanimano, but reduced the award by two-thirds due to the father's own misconduct in misrepresenting his Aboriginal status to facilitate the transfer of the file to Kunuwanimano.

The final costs award was $31,500 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

This is a child protection proceeding under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act concerning a female child (A.L.) with cystic fibrosis who was apprehended at age 10 months from her mother at a women's shelter in September 2014.

The child was born as a result of a surrogacy arrangement between the mother (S.L.) and her mother's common law partner (Y.T.), with the maternal grandmother (M.L.) intended to raise the child.

The society initially sought crown wardship with no access for adoption purposes.

The mother changed her position mid-trial and agreed to crown wardship with supervised maternal access.

The court found the child in need of protection based on risk of physical harm from the mother's substance abuse, mental health issues, and parenting deficiencies.

However, the court rejected crown wardship and ordered the child returned to the father and maternal grandmother under a supervision order, finding that the father and grandmother had provided adequate care, maintained regular access visits, and complied with all society requirements.

The court was highly critical of the society's warrantless apprehension, its preoccupation with the circumstances of conception, its restrictive interim access regime, and the transfer of jurisdiction to Kunuwanimano without proper basis.