Linda C. Henry

The mother, father, and the maternal aunt and uncle (the McCormicks) brought competing motions regarding the residence of the three children.

The father, who shared joint custody with the McCormicks, sought permission to relocate with the children from London to Lindsay for employment.

The mother and the McCormicks opposed the move and sought to have the children placed in their care.

The court granted the father's motion to relocate, finding it in the children's best interests as it allowed the father to secure employment and remain the primary caregiver, subject to modifications in transportation and access schedules.

The motions by the mother and the McCormicks were dismissed.

The appellant mother appealed a summary judgment order making her daughter a Crown ward without access.

She argued the motion judge erred in denying her an adjournment to retain new counsel and present additional evidence, and in granting the order on the record before him.

The Divisional Court admitted fresh evidence regarding a new parenting assessment but found it did not raise a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court concluded the motion judge made no errors in denying the adjournment or in finding that Crown wardship without access was in the child's best interests.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Society sought an order of no access for the purpose of adoption regarding a 12-year-old child who had been made a Crown ward.

The mother sought continued access.

The court applied the test under s. 59(2.1) of the Child and Family Services Act, which requires that the relationship be meaningful and beneficial to the child and not impair future opportunities for adoption.

The court found that while the relationship was meaningful, it was not beneficial due to the mother's historical inability to respect court orders regarding access, her lack of insight, and her tendency to encourage the child to break rules, which destabilized the child.

The mother's claim for access was dismissed.

This is a child protection trial concerning access to a Crown ward.

The child, A.B., was made a Crown ward without access in 2011.

The mother appealed the no-access provision, and the Superior Court ordered a trial on the access issue alone.

The trial examined whether the mother-child relationship was meaningful and beneficial to the child as required under section 59(2.1) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The court found that while a meaningful bond existed, the relationship was not beneficial to the child due to the mother's persistent disregard of court-ordered access conditions, her pattern of encouraging the child to break rules, and her lack of insight into the harm caused to the child.

The court dismissed the mother's claim for access and upheld the no-access order.

The Applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the Children's Aid Society of Niagara refused to reopen an investigation into the suspected sexual abuse of her daughter while in foster care.

The Applicant argued that the Society failed to hear her concerns, failed to provide adequate reasons for its refusal, and failed to proceed with her formal complaint.

The Board found that the Society did not adequately listen to all relevant details provided by the Applicant and failed to provide comprehensive reasons for its decision.

The Society conceded it had not proceeded with the formal complaint process.

The Board ordered the Society to schedule an Internal Complaint Review Panel meeting to address the Applicant's concerns.