Ulyssess Patola

This motion concerned the temporary care and custody of an Indigenous child, J.M. Tikinagan Child and Family Services (TCFS) sought to place the child with J.L., with access to the mother, R.M. Former caregivers S.C. and J.V. brought a cross-motion for the child's placement with them.

The court applied the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (CYFSA) and the An Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Metis Children, Youth and Families (Federal Act), emphasizing the best interests of the child and the priority of placement for Indigenous children.

The court found TCFS discharged its onus, citing concerns about S.C. and J.V.'s care, their interference with access, and their lack of support for reunification and cultural continuity.

The court dismissed S.C. and J.V.'s motion and ordered the child's temporary care and custody with J.L., with supervised access to the mother, supporting reunification efforts.

The respondent, Peter Joseph Welch, sought costs after successfully obtaining a temporary order reinstating his alternating week parenting schedule for the parties' two children.

The applicant, Erinn Lindsay Catherine Gravelle, opposed the costs request.

The court awarded the respondent $4,500 in costs, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The decision considered the respondent's success on the underlying motion, his reasonable offers to settle, and the applicant's failure to make an offer and her unreasonable stance regarding the respondent's mental health treatment.

However, the court reduced the respondent's requested costs, finding some of the fees incurred to justify his unilateral contravention of a prior court order regarding schooling were unnecessary and disproportionate.

The Respondent Father sought to reinstate a previous week-on/week-off parenting schedule for the two children, which had been suspended due to his unilateral decision to homeschool one child and subsequent mental health issues.

The Applicant Mother opposed the full reinstatement but was open to variation, proposing a different temporary schedule and a modified summer schedule.

The court found the Father's mental health was stable and he acknowledged his error in unilaterally changing the child's schooling.

The court reinstated the original week-on/week-off schedule on a temporary basis, vacating the prior suspension order, but adopted the Mother's proposed two-week summer parenting schedule.

The court emphasized that any future changes to schooling must be by agreement or court order, not unilateral action.

The mother brought a motion for summary judgment to restrict the father's parenting time to be based solely on the children's views and preferences, and to finalize child support obligations.

The father had previously brought a motion to change seeking equal parenting time and alleged parental alienation by the mother.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) supported the mother's position, emphasizing the clear and consistent wishes of the teenage children not to have contact with their father.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of the mother, dismissing the father's motion to change, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial given the extensive and credible evidence from the OCL clinicians regarding the children's wishes.