Mark Erik Hecht

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 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.

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 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.

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.