Kristen Robins

Child protection proceeding under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 in which the court was asked to make statutory findings as to whether the children are Indigenous within the meaning of the CYFSA and the federal An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families.

The respondent mother self-identified as First Nations and one child had a clearly established First Nation and Métis paternal lineage supported by extensive genealogical and historical documentation.

The court held that the two legislative schemes impose distinct evidentiary thresholds, with the Federal Act being more stringent than the CYFSA, and declined to find that a CYFSA finding automatically produces a Federal Act finding.

Applying the framework articulated in the prior related decision, the court found that the children's self-identification, ancestral connection, and sustained acceptance by and engagement with the modern Indigenous community in Ottawa satisfied the evidentiary requirements under both statutes.

The children's aid society brought a motion for a temporary order to keep two Indigenous children in its care and custody pending the disposition of the protection application.

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

Applying the Federal Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, the court emphasized the importance of cultural continuity and the statutory presumption prioritizing placement with a parent.

The court found that the mother had taken substantial steps to address the society's concerns regarding alcohol use and exposure to domestic violence, including securing safe housing and engaging with culturally appropriate support services.

The society's motion was dismissed, and the children were ordered returned to the mother under a supervision order.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa applied for a custody order under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, to place the child, VP, in the permanent care of her kin caregivers, S.V. and J.V. The child's mother, S.P., sought a supervision order for gradual reintegration, while an assisted care provider, G.C., sought custody or access.

The court found the child in need of protection due to the mother's unresolved substance abuse, mental health issues, and exposure to domestic violence.

Ultimately, the court granted custody to S.V. and J.V., finding their plan to be in the child's best interests, while ordering supervised access for the mother, scheduled access for the father, and denying access to G.C.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a summary judgment motion seeking custody of three children with their paternal grandmother due to the mother's untreated substance addiction, mental health issues, and chaotic lifestyle.

The father and paternal grandmother supported the Society's motion.

The mother opposed, seeking shared decision-making and parenting time.

The paternal grandmother also brought a cross-motion for a change of the youngest child's surname.

The court granted the Society's motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, and placed the children in the paternal grandmother's custody with specific supervised access for the mother.

The paternal grandmother's cross-motion for a name change was dismissed as moot.

G.C. (an added party) sought an order for access to the child, V.E.B.P., and S.P. (the mother) brought a cross-motion seeking to have G.C. supervise her access to the child.

The Children’s Aid Society, the father, and the child's kin caregivers opposed both motions.

The court denied G.C.'s motion for interim access, finding that the relationship was not sufficiently beneficial or meaningful to the child, citing concerns about G.C.'s transparency, involvement in adult conflict, and negative messaging about the father.

The court also denied the mother's request for G.C. to supervise access, concluding that G.C. was not a suitable supervisor due to lack of neutrality and past conduct.

The child's stability and positive development in kin care were significant factors in the decision.

The children's aid society brought a motion for a temporary supervision order to place a four-year-old Indigenous child in the care of the mother pending trial.

The child had been residing with a non-relative kin caregiver for approximately two years.

The court applied the federal Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, noting its paramountcy over provincial legislation and its priority of placement for parents.

Finding that the mother had made significant progress in mitigating child protection concerns and that a return to her care was in the child's best interests, the court granted the motion and ordered the child placed with the mother subject to society supervision.

In a child protection proceeding, the father sought a temporary order returning the child to a 50/50 shared parenting regime.

The children's aid society and the mother opposed, seeking to confirm an existing order placing the child in the mother's care with supervised access for the father.

The court found that returning the child to the father's care was not in the child's best interests due to unresolved concerns regarding the father's alleged drug use, the presence of inappropriate individuals at his residence, and his behavior during access visits.

The court ordered that the child remain in the mother's care subject to society supervision.

The Children's Aid Society sought an order placing a 16-month-old child in extended society care.

The child was apprehended at birth.

The mother consented to the order but sought access.

The father, who has Indigenous heritage, developmental delays, and a criminal record, sought the return of the child to his care.

The court found that returning the child to the father posed too high a risk due to his impulsivity, inconsistent access attendance, and inability to cooperate with the Society.

The court ordered the child placed in extended society care.

The court also ordered access for both parents, designating the mother and the child as access holders and the father as an access recipient, to balance the child's need for a permanent placement with the benefits of maintaining a connection to his biological parents.

The Children's Aid Society apprehended the child at birth and sought a finding that the child was in need of protection.

After the Society closed its case at the adjudicative stage of the trial, the father brought a motion for a non-suit, arguing the Society failed to establish a prima facie case.

The court dismissed the non-suit motion, finding that the father's impulsivity, history of domestic violence, inconsistent access visits, and inability to control his emotions posed a real risk of physical and emotional harm to the child.

The court concluded the child was in need of protection and directed the matter to proceed to the dispositional stage.

This endorsement addresses the re-opening of a child protection trial due to material changes in circumstances and establishes detailed procedural guidelines for its continuation via videoconferencing.

The court outlines protocols for evidence submission, witness examination, document management, and technological requirements to facilitate a virtual hearing during the COVID-19 pandemic, drawing upon best practices for remote hearings.

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 children's aid society brought a motion for temporary care and custody of an infant child.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, seeking the child's return under a supervision order.

The court reviewed the mother's extensive history with the society, which included five older children being made Crown wards due to her unaddressed mental health and personality issues.

Finding that the mother had not yet made sufficient progress in specialized therapy to mitigate the risk of harm, the court granted the society's motion and placed the child in temporary society care with supervised access.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a motion for the production of various records from the mother, H.D., in child protection proceedings.

The Society sought police records and mental health records for the mother, dating back to 2002 or 2010.

The mother consented to some productions but objected to the broad scope of others, arguing a lack of evidentiary basis for relevance.

The court, applying the "may be relevant" test under s.130(3) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, found that while some records were relevant, the Society had not established an evidentiary basis for the full scope requested.

The court ordered production of police and mental health records from 2015 to present, and specific records related to the children and a possible court-mandated assessment for the mother, but denied the broader requests.

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 mother brought a motion to change a 2013 final order, seeking joint custody and a 50/50 parenting schedule for her 7-year-old daughter, H.M.C. The respondent father opposed, arguing no material change in circumstances and that contact was not in the child's best interests.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the mother's demonstrated progress in counselling, stable parenting of her other children, and cooperation with the Children's Aid Society (CAS).

While denying joint custody, the court ordered gradual supervised access for the mother through the Supervised Access Program, emphasizing the child's best interests, the need for professional guidance during reintegration, and the importance of sibling contact.

A 4-year-old child, B., was apprehended and placed with her maternal grandmother under a temporary supervision order.

The Children's Aid Society (CAS) initially sought a supervision order to the grandmother but later amended its application to seek a 6-month supervision order to the father.

The CAS and father then moved for a temporary placement with the father, while the mother sought placement with her.

The court dismissed the mother's request and, after reserving on the father's request, ordered that the child remain with the maternal grandmother under the temporary supervision order, pending final determination of the amended application.

The decision emphasized the importance of continuity of care and the high threshold ("require") for changing a child's placement before a final determination, and highlighted the need for adherence to statutory timelines in child protection cases.

The Children's Aid Society sought a temporary order for the return of three children to their mother's care, subject to supervision and conditions, after apprehending them due to deplorable living conditions and neglect.

The mother supported this, while the fathers of two children opposed, seeking continued placement with them or foster care.

The court found a significant risk of harm but determined that the proposed supervision order, with amendments including the permanent removal of pets and mandatory program completion, was sufficient to mitigate the risk, emphasizing the least intrusive course of action.

Following a Divisional Court order requiring reconsideration of a prior Crown wardship decision, the court conducted a full reconsideration of a child protection status review involving two young children.

The moving parties argued that the statutory definitions of “Indian” and “native person” in the Child and Family Services Act were unconstitutional and sought placement of the children with family members rather than Crown wardship.

The court rejected the constitutional challenge, finding insufficient evidentiary foundation to establish discrimination under s. 15 of the Charter and no breach of s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

On the merits, the court found that proposed family placement plans lacked sufficient indicia of permanence and stability after the children had already spent an extended period in care.

Considering the statutory best‑interests factors and the importance of permanency, the court concluded that Crown wardship with access best served the children’s interests.

The children's aid society brought a motion to vary a temporary consent access order to require the father's access to his one-year-old child be supervised.

The motion was prompted by the discovery that the father had left the child unattended while he went to the store.

The mother supported the motion, while the father sought to maintain unsupervised access.

The court found that the father's actions demonstrated substandard parenting and justified a change in the access order.

However, to maintain the positive relationship between the father and child, the court ordered that access be supervised by the paternal grandparents, with the father permitted up to four hours of unsupervised access during the day.

In child protection proceedings, the applicant society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a final order granting sole custody of the child to the father with supervised access to the mother.

The evidence demonstrated a lengthy history of domestic violence, substance abuse, mental health instability, and inconsistent participation in treatment and parenting programs by the mother.

The father had cooperated with the society, completed counselling and anger management programs, and was providing stable care for the child.

The mother filed no responding evidence and sought an adjournment at the hearing.

The court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and granted sole custody to the father under the Child and Family Services Act with conditions and supervised access to the mother.