Lucy Glenn

The accused brought a Charter application under s. 8 and s. 24(2) to exclude all evidence obtained from two search warrants executed on May 7, 2014.

The accused was charged with uttering threats to cause death, possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, and possession of prohibited weapons.

The court found that police officers conducting the search exceeded the scope of the warrant by searching in containers too small to hold a shotgun while looking for gun parts, thereby violating the accused's s. 8 rights.

The court also found that the officers improperly seized cell phones and medical information without reasonable grounds, and that misleading reports were filed with the justice.

Applying the Grant analysis, the court excluded all evidence obtained from the searches due to the serious and deliberate nature of the Charter breaches and the importance of maintaining judicial oversight through accurate reporting.

A child protection proceeding under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act involving three children of a mother with a history of choosing inappropriate and dangerous intimate partners.

The Society sought Crown wardship with no access for all three children.

The mother sought return of all children under a supervision order.

The father of the youngest child sought placement of all three children with him or, alternatively, access.

The court found the children in need of protection and made the youngest child a Crown Ward with no access for adoption purposes, made the oldest child a Crown Ward with access to the mother, and returned the middle child to the mother's care under a supervision order with strict conditions regarding the mother's relationships and ongoing therapy.

This is a summary judgment motion arising from a status review application under the Child and Family Services Act concerning a child born in 2012.

The Society sought to make the child a Crown ward with no access to the parents.

The mother was in default and had abandoned the child after only thirteen days of placement in her care.

The father sought placement of the child in his care subject to supervision.

The court found that the father lacked parenting ability and commitment to care for the child independently, had not visited the child since she was taken into care in October 2014, and had a long history of parenting deficiencies.

The court granted the Society's motion and made the child a Crown ward with no access to either parent.

A child protection summary judgment motion brought by Chatham-Kent Children's Services seeking to have a child declared a Crown ward with no access to the respondents.

The father presented a plan for the child's care, but the mother and paternal step-grandfather were in default.

The court found that the child was in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act and that the father's plan was deficient.

The father had demonstrated a lack of commitment to the child through inconsistent access visits and had a history of parenting failures with other children.

The court granted the Society's motion, making the child a Crown ward with no access to any respondents.

Application by Chatham-Kent Children's Services regarding five children in need of protection.

The court found that the children were in need of protection due to chronic neglect, physical abuse, parental cognitive limitations, and exposure to domestic conflict.

The mother and father of the two youngest children proposed returning all five children to their care in Quebec, but the court rejected this plan as inadequate and unsafe.

The court ordered that the three oldest children be placed in kinship care or as Crown wards with specified access arrangements, and that the two youngest children be made Crown wards with no parental access to facilitate adoption.

A child protection society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a Crown wardship order with no access for a child apprehended at birth and in care for nearly three years.

The mother opposed the motion and sought return of the child under supervision.

The father was in default and did not participate.

The court found the child in need of protection based on the parents' history with the society, prior judicial findings, and the mother's ongoing substance abuse, mental health issues, cognitive limitations, unstable relationship with the father, and lack of cooperation with the society.

The court rejected the mother's argument that a triable issue existed regarding whether her drug use negatively impacted her parenting ability, finding insufficient evidence to support such a claim.

The court made the child a Crown ward with no access to either parent, prioritizing the child's need for permanency planning and adoption prospects.

A child protection application concerning two children, S. and J., brought by Chatham-Kent Children's Services.

The Society alleged that the children were in need of protection due to physical and emotional abuse, inappropriate discipline, and inadequate care by their mother and stepfather.

The trial addressed grounds for protection, supervision of access, and whether ongoing protection orders were necessary.

The court found that S. was in need of protection and made her a Crown ward with supervised access to her mother.

The court found that J. was in need of protection in 2007-2008 but that no ongoing protection order was warranted, and he remained in his mother's care without supervision.

A custody application brought by the mother against the father involving their child born in 2011, with the complication that the mother faced deportation to Hong Kong on April 30, 2012.

The father cross-claimed for custody and child support or, alternatively, specified access.

The court found that the father had engaged in domestic violence, confinement, assault, and threats against the mother, and demonstrated poor parenting practices.

The mother was granted sole custody of the child.

The father was granted supervised access twice per week for two hours per visit, which would terminate upon the mother's deportation.

The non-removal order was terminated as there was no evidence that either parent intended to voluntarily remove the child from the jurisdiction.