Lana Pryce

This child protection case involved an interim motion by the respondent mother to vary a temporary access order for her 8-year-old child, A., who resides with his maternal aunt and uncle.

The mother sought to lift supervision and expand parenting time, including weekend visits.

The court denied the mother's request for expanded unsupervised access, citing concerns about the child's diagnosed special needs, the mother's mental health, her inconsistent attendance at visits, and the aunt's rigid stance threatening to place the child in care if weekend access was ordered.

The court ordered the continuation of supervised and therapeutic access, emphasizing the need for all parties to cooperate and implement professional recommendations for the child's best interests and long-term stability.

The Durham Children’s Aid Society initiated a child protection proceeding concerning A.M., whose parents struggled with drug addiction.

The child had been informally cared for by C.C., a maternal cousin, for several months.

The Society and C.C. brought motions regarding C.C.'s party status and access to the child, while the parents sought reunification.

The court addressed whether C.C. qualified as a statutory party or a party with "care and control" under the Family Law Rules, ultimately deciding to add C.C. as a party under Rule 7(5) due to her significant role in the child's life and her legal interest in seeking access.

The court also determined a temporary access schedule for C.C. with the child, balancing the child's best interests with the parents' reunification efforts, which remained tentative.

The applicant brought a motion to vary a supervision order on an interim basis to allow the father and the child to relocate to southwestern Ontario.

The applicant had already facilitated and funded the move without prior judicial authorization.

The court granted a temporary, without prejudice order allowing the child to remain with the father in the new location, but strongly criticized the applicant for bypassing judicial oversight and failing to ensure the self-represented parents and the child's counsel were properly involved before the move.

The children's aid society brought a motion for temporary care and custody of a child, seeking to suspend the father's parenting time due to allegations of sexual abuse.

The society initially withheld the specific allegations and evidence from the parents and the Court, citing an ongoing police investigation.

The Court held that the society had no legal basis to withhold relevant evidence, emphasizing that fundamental fairness, the legislative framework, and Charter principles require full and early disclosure.

The Court strongly cautioned against proceeding ex parte or withholding evidence to protect a police investigation, noting the severe consequences of child protection proceedings.