Maria Fernandes

The respondent father sought restoration of access to his children, which the applicant mother had unilaterally terminated due to concerns about his adherence to COVID-19 public health protocols.

The court found that while the father may have initially underestimated the crisis and breached an undertaking, the mother's self-help was unacceptable.

The court also noted potential risks at the mother's home due to her boyfriend's work.

Ultimately, the court ordered the restoration of the father's access in accordance with the existing order, with both parents undertaking to follow public safety protocols.

Police enforcement was deemed inappropriate at this time.

The applicant sought leave to bring an urgent motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home during the COVID-19 pandemic, citing health concerns due to his cardiac issues and the respondent's employment in long-term care facilities, as well as alleged violence and intentional coughing.

The court, applying the Chief Justice's Notice to the Profession regarding urgent family law matters, determined that the request for exclusive possession related to the safety of a party met the definition of urgency.

Leave was granted for the applicant to proceed with the motion, with specific timelines for filing affidavits and scheduling a conference call hearing.

The applicant mother sought an urgent motion for police assistance, makeup access, and a return to a week-about parenting regime after the respondent father refused to return their child, Riven.

The court, operating under COVID-19 emergency protocols, determined that the matter met the definition of urgency as it involved the well-being and alleged wrongful retention of a child.

The motion was allowed to proceed on notice to the respondent via email, with specific procedural directions for filing materials and a hearing by conference call, acknowledging the pandemic's impact on service and affidavit requirements.

In a child protection status review application, the respondent father sought an order granting access to the child for himself and for non-parties (the paternal aunt and paternal uncle).

The maternal grandparents, who had been granted custody of the child, opposed the access order for the non-parties, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction to grant access to persons who were not parties to the proceeding.

The court determined that it had jurisdiction to make access orders under section 58 of the Child and Family Services Act within the ongoing status review application, and that it was not a prerequisite for granting access that a person be a party to the proceeding.

The court found no unfairness to the maternal grandparents, as they had full notice of the paternal relatives' claims through active case management and disclosure.

A status review application under the Child and Family Services Act concerning the disposition of a three-year-old child (E.P.) who had been apprehended at birth due to prenatal drug exposure and Neo-Natal Abstinence Syndrome.

The child had been in continuous foster care since October 2012.

The mother sought placement of the child in her care subject to society supervision, having achieved approximately eight months of sobriety following residential treatment.

The maternal grandmother sought placement as an alternative.

The society sought Crown wardship without access to facilitate adoption by the foster parents.

The court found that while the mother had made significant progress in her recovery and compliance with the plan of care, the paramount consideration was the child's best interests, which required maintaining continuity of care with the foster parents to whom the child was deeply bonded.

The court made an order for Crown wardship without access.