Matthew Huston

The respondent father brought a motion for compliance with a consent temporary parenting time order dated April 12, 2024, and sought make-up parenting time for time that was withheld.

The applicant mother countered with a motion to vary the parenting time order and impose supervised parenting time.

The central issue involved allegations of family violence and coercive control by the father.

Following a high-risk committee meeting on March 12, 2025, the mother withheld the child and supervised parenting time was implemented.

The Children's Aid Society initially required supervision but subsequently changed its position and stated it was not taking a position on parenting time.

The court found that while the father had engaged in reprehensible conduct in the past, his recent behavior demonstrated a shift, he had cooperated with authorities, undertaken counselling and programming, and there was no evidence of continued violations of court orders.

The court dismissed the mother's motion for supervised parenting time, ordered the mother to comply with the April 12, 2024 order, and denied the father's request for make-up time.

The Anishinaabe Abinooji Family Services (AAFS) brought a motion for temporary care and custody of a 12-year-old Indigenous child, M.P., who was apprehended after threatening self-harm if forced to return to the care of Traci Lockman, a non-Indigenous former caregiver.

The child's biological father, N.J., and the G.N. First Nation (GNFN) supported the AAFS's position to place M.P. with her elder sister, S.P., in the First Nation community.

Ms. Lockman sought the child's return to her care.

The court applied the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (CYFSA) and the paramount federal An Act Respecting the First Nations, Inuit and Metis Children Youth and Families (Federal Act).

The court found that AAFS discharged its onus, establishing reasonable and probable grounds of risk of harm if the child returned to Ms. Lockman.

Emphasizing the Federal Act's priority of placement scheme and the child's best interests, including cultural continuity and connection to the Indigenous community, the court determined that S.P., as an adult family member, had priority over Ms. Lockman, who was not considered family by the First Nation or the father.

The court dismissed Ms. Lockman's request and ordered M.P. to remain in the temporary care and custody of S.P. under AAFS and GNFN supervision, with structured access for Ms. Lockman.