Marie-Josée Ranger

This endorsement addresses the re-opening of a child protection trial due to material changes in circumstances and establishes detailed procedural guidelines for its continuation via videoconferencing.

The court outlines protocols for evidence submission, witness examination, document management, and technological requirements to facilitate a virtual hearing during the COVID-19 pandemic, drawing upon best practices for remote hearings.

The Children's Aid Society sought an order to place one child, B.L., in the temporary care of kin pending trial.

The parents brought a cross-motion to return all five children to their temporary care under a supervision order.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the kin placement approval for B.L. and the parents' recent housing and service engagement for the other children.

The court granted the Society's motion for B.L., placing him with kin, finding it in his best interests and that he could not be returned to parents.

The parents' cross-motion for the four youngest children was adjourned to allow them more time to demonstrate sustained progress in addressing mental health, addiction, and parenting concerns.

The children's aid society brought a motion for an order placing three children in the temporary care and custody of their father, subject to a supervision order.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing the children would be at risk with the father due to his history of domestic violence and substance abuse, and requested the children remain in foster care until she could secure housing.

The court found credible and trustworthy evidence that the children would be at risk of harm if returned to the mother due to her unmanaged mental health and substance abuse issues, and that a supervision order would not provide adequate protection.

The court concluded it was in the children's best interests to be placed in the temporary care and custody of the father, who had demonstrated sobriety and the ability to provide a safe home.

The applicant children's aid society brought a motion for temporary care and custody of an infant child.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, seeking the child's return under a supervision order.

The court reviewed the mother's extensive history with the society, which included five older children being made Crown wards due to her unaddressed mental health and personality issues.

Finding that the mother had not yet made sufficient progress in specialized therapy to mitigate the risk of harm, the court granted the society's motion and placed the child in temporary society care with supervised access.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a motion for the production of various records from the mother, H.D., in child protection proceedings.

The Society sought police records and mental health records for the mother, dating back to 2002 or 2010.

The mother consented to some productions but objected to the broad scope of others, arguing a lack of evidentiary basis for relevance.

The court, applying the "may be relevant" test under s.130(3) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, found that while some records were relevant, the Society had not established an evidentiary basis for the full scope requested.

The court ordered production of police and mental health records from 2015 to present, and specific records related to the children and a possible court-mandated assessment for the mother, but denied the broader requests.

The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a final order to place the child, J.Q., in the Extended Care of the Society, with discretionary access for the mother and maternal grandmother.

The mother opposed the motion but failed to file responding material.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding that the child remained in need of protection due to the mother's ongoing substance abuse issues and inconsistent engagement with support services.

The father and paternal grandmother were in default.

The motion was granted, placing the child in the Society's extended care to provide stability and certainty.

The Children's Aid Society initially sought summary judgment for extended care of three children but withdrew it.

The respondent mother then brought a motion for a temporary or final order placing the children in her care.

The court considered the children's best interests under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and the mother's progress since her incarceration and criminal charges.

Despite some concerns regarding contact with the father and transparency, the court found that a temporary order returning the children to the mother's care, subject to detailed conditions, was in their best interests.

The court emphasized the mother's significant improvements and the children's desire to live with her.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a final order to place A.S. in the custody of his father, L.S., in Calgary.

The mother, K.F., opposed the motion and sought custody or a supervision order.

The court denied K.F.'s request for an adjournment, finding no genuine issue for trial regarding her ability to parent due to persistent mental health issues and an unstable lifestyle.

While finding that A.S.'s removal from K.F.'s care was necessary and that placement with L.S. was in A.S.'s best interests, the court deferred a final order pending an updated assessment of L.S.'s family by Calgary Child Welfare Services.

An interim order was made placing A.S. in the temporary care and custody of L.S.

The appellant mother appealed a trial judge's decision declaring her child a Crown ward without access.

The mother argued the trial judge erred by placing too much importance on her young age, ignoring her efforts to remedy parenting deficiencies, and failing to properly apply the tests for the child's best interests, maximum time in care, and termination of access.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual conclusions or application of the law, including the consideration of the child's African Francophone heritage and the assessment of alternative plans.

The Children's Aid Society was involved with a special needs child who had been placed in the legal custody of a kin caregiver.

The sole issue at trial was the frequency of the mother's supervised access visits.

The mother sought weekly access, while the Society and the kin caregiver proposed access once every three weeks due to the child's fragile health, strict routine requirements, and the mother's history of inconsistent attendance and alcohol use.

Applying the best interests of the child test under the Child and Family Services Act, the court ordered supervised access once every three weeks for two hours, with strict conditions regarding the mother's sobriety and attendance.

The appellant mother appealed a summary judgment order finding her two children in need of protection and making them Crown wards.

The motion judge had also denied access to the younger child and ordered supervised access for the older child.

On appeal, the mother argued there were genuine issues for trial, that she received ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the older child's wishes were misrepresented.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusions regarding the risk of harm, the mother's failure to obtain mental health treatment, and the best interests of the children.

The court also found no merit to the ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

The appellant father appealed a trial decision granting Crown wardship of his child with no access for the purpose of adoption.

The father sought joint custody with the child's paternal aunt, or sole custody for the aunt to adopt the child.

The father argued the trial judge provided inadequate reasons, misapprehended evidence regarding his drug addiction recovery, and failed to consider the least intrusive course of action.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons were adequate, his credibility findings and preference for the court-appointed expert's evidence were reasonable, and he properly considered and rejected the aunt's plan of care as insufficient to protect the child.

The father of a child in care brought motions to validate the late delivery of his notice of appeal, to stay the trial judge's order making the child a Crown ward with no access, and for access pending appeal for himself and the child's aunt.

The society brought a cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the appeal.

The aunt sought to be added as a party.

The Divisional Court granted the father's motion to extend the time to appeal, finding no prejudice to the child.

The court dismissed the society's motion for summary judgment, holding that the rules do not permit summary judgment on appeals to the Divisional Court.

The court declined to add the aunt as a party or stay the trial decision, and denied the father access pending appeal.

However, the court granted the aunt access to the child pending the appeal, finding it to be in the child's best interests.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a motion for summary judgment under Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules in an Amended Status Review Application concerning the child H.L. The Society sought a final order granting custody to the child's kin, with the father having discretionary access and the mother's access to be determined after mediation.

The respondent mother resisted, seeking the child's return to her care.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the mother's recent sobriety efforts were insufficient to warrant a return to her care or delay the decision, prioritizing the child's best interests and stability in the kin placement.

A 4-year-old child, B., was apprehended and placed with her maternal grandmother under a temporary supervision order.

The Children's Aid Society (CAS) initially sought a supervision order to the grandmother but later amended its application to seek a 6-month supervision order to the father.

The CAS and father then moved for a temporary placement with the father, while the mother sought placement with her.

The court dismissed the mother's request and, after reserving on the father's request, ordered that the child remain with the maternal grandmother under the temporary supervision order, pending final determination of the amended application.

The decision emphasized the importance of continuity of care and the high threshold ("require") for changing a child's placement before a final determination, and highlighted the need for adherence to statutory timelines in child protection cases.

The mother brought a motion seeking temporary care and custody of her three special needs children and permission to relocate them from Ottawa to London, Ontario.

The Children's Aid Society and the father opposed the motion, arguing that there had been no material change in circumstances since a previous order placed the children in the father's care.

The court dismissed the mother's motion, finding that she failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances requiring an interim change in the children's placement.

Many of the allegations raised by the mother were found to have been previously considered.

The Children's Aid Society apprehended five children due to concerns including alleged sexual abuse, drug involvement, and unexplained injuries to one child.

While four children were returned to the mother's care under supervision, the temporary care and custody of one child, N., remained at issue.

The mother moved for N.'s return, which the father opposed due to concerns about supervision, a past grow-op, and the mother's candour.

The Society took no position on N.'s placement.

The court, applying section 51(3) of the CFSA, found no reasonable grounds to believe N. would suffer harm that could not be adequately protected by a supervision order, and ordered N.'s return to the mother and her partner under specific conditions.

Mildred McMurtry sought a declaration of ownership for 10 shares in Mic Mac Realty (Ottawa) Ltd. (MMR), alleging they were part of her late husband's estate, of which she was the residuary beneficiary.

Her son, John McMurtry, claimed the shares were a gift from his father or completed by him as an executor.

The court found no completed gift and that the shares remained part of the estate.

However, Mildred's claim for ownership was barred by the equitable doctrines of laches and estoppel due to her delay and acquiescence, and a constructive trust was imposed, holding the shares for John's benefit.

The court also addressed the nature of declaratory relief and limitation periods.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection and an order for Crown wardship.

The child had been apprehended due to domestic violence between the parents and the mother's failure to protect the child from the father.

The court granted summary judgment finding the child in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act, noting the parents' history of conflict and the mother's lack of insight.

However, the court dismissed the motion for summary judgment regarding Crown wardship, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding the appropriate disposition, as the mother had made efforts to rehabilitate herself and raised concerns about the parenting capacity assessment.