Mark Erik Hecht

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa applied for a custody order under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, to place the child, VP, in the permanent care of her kin caregivers, S.V. and J.V. The child's mother, S.P., sought a supervision order for gradual reintegration, while an assisted care provider, G.C., sought custody or access.

The court found the child in need of protection due to the mother's unresolved substance abuse, mental health issues, and exposure to domestic violence.

Ultimately, the court granted custody to S.V. and J.V., finding their plan to be in the child's best interests, while ordering supervised access for the mother, scheduled access for the father, and denying access to G.C.

The court considered a summary judgment motion by the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa regarding the child, AM.

The Society sought a final custody order for TR, the father’s partner, but the court found there were significant triable issues, including the child’s Indigenous status, the adequacy of kinship assessments, and the best interests of the child regarding care and access.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and the matter was sent to trial.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a summary judgment motion seeking custody of three children with their paternal grandmother due to the mother's untreated substance addiction, mental health issues, and chaotic lifestyle.

The father and paternal grandmother supported the Society's motion.

The mother opposed, seeking shared decision-making and parenting time.

The paternal grandmother also brought a cross-motion for a change of the youngest child's surname.

The court granted the Society's motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, and placed the children in the paternal grandmother's custody with specific supervised access for the mother.

The paternal grandmother's cross-motion for a name change was dismissed as moot.

G.C. (an added party) sought an order for access to the child, V.E.B.P., and S.P. (the mother) brought a cross-motion seeking to have G.C. supervise her access to the child.

The Children’s Aid Society, the father, and the child's kin caregivers opposed both motions.

The court denied G.C.'s motion for interim access, finding that the relationship was not sufficiently beneficial or meaningful to the child, citing concerns about G.C.'s transparency, involvement in adult conflict, and negative messaging about the father.

The court also denied the mother's request for G.C. to supervise access, concluding that G.C. was not a suitable supervisor due to lack of neutrality and past conduct.

The child's stability and positive development in kin care were significant factors in the decision.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a motion for interim care and custody of baby R. under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, citing concerns about the parents' mental/emotional health, domestic conflict, and non-cooperation.

The parents, K.T. and E.M., opposed the motion, arguing they had made significant progress and that an interim supervision order would adequately protect the child.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe there was a risk of emotional harm to R. if returned without conditions, but ultimately determined that an Interim Supervision Order with detailed terms and conditions, including cooperation with external service providers and the Society, would adequately mitigate the risk.

The motion for Society care was dismissed, and the child was returned to the parents' care under supervision.

The paternal grandmother brought a motion to be added as a party to a child protection proceeding involving her three grandchildren.

The children had recently been placed in her temporary care under a supervision order.

The mother opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that adding the grandmother as a party at this early stage would cause delay, unnecessarily complicate the proceedings, and escalate conflict, which was not in the children's best interests.

The court noted the grandmother could reapply if circumstances changed.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for the production of police and medical records regarding the respondent parents in a child protection proceeding.

The parents consented to the release of police records but opposed the release of their medical records, citing significant privacy interests related to their complex medical care as transgender individuals.

The court dismissed the motion for medical records, finding no sufficient nexus between the Society's concerns about emotional health and the predominantly endocrinological treatment the parents received.

The court held that the parents' privacy interests and the need to maintain their therapeutic relationships outweighed the probative value of the records at this stage.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for a temporary care and custody order to place a child with his biological father, J.W., under an interim supervision order.

The child's parents, K.T. and E.M., sought the child's return to K.T.'s care under an interim supervision order.

The court found the child was at risk of emotional harm due to exposure to adult conflict between the parents.

However, given that the parents were now living separately, the court determined that the child could be adequately protected by an interim supervision order returning the child to K.T.'s care, with terms reflecting the Society's notice of motion.

The Society's request for placement with J.W. was dismissed, and the child was returned to the mother, K.T., under supervision.

In a child protection proceeding, the child's caregivers brought a motion to remove the biological father as a party to the proceeding.

The biological father brought a cross-motion for interim parenting time or care of the child.

The court dismissed the motion to remove the biological father as a party, finding that he met the statutory definition of a parent and that removing him would be a denial of natural justice.

The court granted the biological father's motion for interim access, ordering supervised visits to foster a relationship between him and the child.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa (Society) brought a motion seeking to continue a temporary order for the care and custody of a three-month-old child (M.K.) on a with prejudice basis, placing the child in the Society's temporary care.

The Respondent Mother opposed the motion, requesting the child's return to her care with conditions.

The Respondent Father was removed as a party after a paternity test revealed he was not the biological father.

The court applied the two-part legal test under subsections 94(2), (4), and (5) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The court found credible and trustworthy evidence of a risk of harm to the child due to the Mother's long-standing, unresolved mental health issues, including chronic delusional disorder and recent bipolar diagnosis, her inability to cooperate with professionals, and an insufficient support network.

The court concluded that the child could not be adequately protected by an interim supervision order.

The Society's motion was granted, and the child remained in the Society's care and custody, with access to the Mother at the Society's discretion, pending the completion of proceedings.

This is a status review application by the Children’s Aid Society seeking a custody order for three children in favour of their maternal grandmother, with access to the mother at the grandmother's sole discretion.

The mother sought the children's return under a voluntary service agreement or supervision order.

The court found the children remained in need of protection due to the mother's pattern of engaging in violent relationships, domestic violence occurring in front of the children, and drug use.

The court dismissed the mother's plan and granted custody to the maternal grandmother, finding it to be in the children's best interests, emphasizing stability, safety, and the grandmother's ability to meet their needs.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a motion for summary judgment on a status review application, seeking an extended society care order for a two-year-old child with a plan for adoption.

The mother, who struggled with addiction and mental health issues, did not respond to the motion.

The court granted the extended society care order, finding no genuine issue for trial.

The court also determined that the order could not be silent on access, as requested by the Society, and instead explicitly ordered no access for either parent, while leaving open the issue of the child's access to her sibling and maternal grandparents.

The respondent-father sought costs against the respondent-mother in a child protection matter.

The court found that the mother's conduct throughout the litigation was unreasonable, in bad faith, and disproportionate, causing unnecessary delays and costs.

Despite the general presumption against costs in child protection cases, the court exercised its discretion under the Family Law Rules to award costs due to the mother's conduct, including refusal to cooperate, defiance of court orders, and failure to address protection concerns.

Costs were fixed at $16,000.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa-Kanata brought a motion for summary judgment in a child protection application concerning three children.

The mother, B.S., brought a cross-motion seeking various relief, including the return of the children to her care.

The court found the children to be in need of protection due to high parental conflict, the mother's refusal to cooperate with the Society and court orders, and concerns regarding her mental health.

The court dismissed the mother's motion and granted the Society's motion for summary judgment, placing the children in the sole custody of the father, D.S., with supervised access for the mother at the father's discretion, subject to review upon completion of a mental health assessment.

The respondent mother brought a motion to dispense with service on the father and to remove him as a party in child protection proceedings, citing a history of abuse and potential harm.

The court dismissed the motion to remove the father as a party, finding no jurisdiction under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 or the Family Law Rules to do so based on the mother's fears.

The court emphasized the father's fundamental right to participate and the children's potential for paternal kin placement.

While the motion to dispense with service on the basis of harm was abandoned due to lack of jurisdiction, the court ordered temporary protective measures for the mother and children, including a restraining order against the father and substituted service of limited documents via his Facebook account, pending his engagement in the proceedings.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking Crown wardship without access for three children.

The children had been apprehended due to physical abuse and had significant special needs.

The father opposed the motion, arguing he could parent the children and challenging the society's evidence regarding his behaviour during access visits.

The court applied the summary judgment framework and found no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated that the father could not meet the children's complex needs and that Crown wardship without access for the purpose of adoption was in their best interests.

A child protection proceeding concerning a newborn apprehended shortly after birth due to concerns about the mother's substance use, mental health, and ability to parent a special-needs infant.

The applicant society sought a declaration that the child was in need of protection and an order for Crown wardship without access for the purpose of adoption.

Expert psychiatric evidence concluded the mother lacked parenting capacity and would require years of intensive treatment and counselling before being able to parent safely.

The court found the child remained in need of protection and that the mother had not addressed the underlying concerns despite significant services offered.

Considering the statutory best interests factors, the court concluded that Crown wardship without access was necessary to ensure stability and permanency.

The children's aid society sought an order granting custody of a four-year-old child to the maternal grandmother, with access to the parents.

The father initially sought sole custody but conceded during the trial that the grandmother should have custody.

The court found that the father lacked insight into his parenting role and exhibited behaviors that undermined the grandmother and the mother.

Applying the best interests of the child factors under the Child and Family Services Act, the court granted custody to the grandmother and ordered that the father's access be at the grandmother's discretion.

The father was also ordered not to return to court on custody and access issues without proof of meaningful psychotherapy.

The children's aid society brought a motion to vary a temporary consent access order to require the father's access to his one-year-old child be supervised.

The motion was prompted by the discovery that the father had left the child unattended while he went to the store.

The mother supported the motion, while the father sought to maintain unsupervised access.

The court found that the father's actions demonstrated substandard parenting and justified a change in the access order.

However, to maintain the positive relationship between the father and child, the court ordered that access be supervised by the paternal grandparents, with the father permitted up to four hours of unsupervised access during the day.

In a child protection proceeding seeking Crown wardship, both parents brought motions to adjourn the scheduled trial until after the completion of related criminal proceedings against them.

The court held that the parents could testify in the child protection proceeding without prejudicing their criminal trial rights and that the statutory timelines under the Child and Family Services Act and Family Law Rules required timely resolution.

The court found no sufficient evidentiary basis to delay the matter beyond the statutory limits and dismissed the parents’ adjournment motions.

However, the court granted an adjournment to allow the father to retain new counsel after his lawyer withdrew for health reasons, and removed counsel of record.

The trial dates were vacated and rescheduled to a fixed date.