Michael Chun

Child protection proceeding under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 in which the court was asked to make statutory findings as to whether the children are Indigenous within the meaning of the CYFSA and the federal An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families.

The respondent mother self-identified as First Nations and one child had a clearly established First Nation and Métis paternal lineage supported by extensive genealogical and historical documentation.

The court held that the two legislative schemes impose distinct evidentiary thresholds, with the Federal Act being more stringent than the CYFSA, and declined to find that a CYFSA finding automatically produces a Federal Act finding.

Applying the framework articulated in the prior related decision, the court found that the children's self-identification, ancestral connection, and sustained acceptance by and engagement with the modern Indigenous community in Ottawa satisfied the evidentiary requirements under both statutes.

The children's aid society brought a motion for a temporary order to keep two Indigenous children in its care and custody pending the disposition of the protection application.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking the return of the children under a supervision order.

Applying the Federal Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, the court emphasized the importance of cultural continuity and the statutory presumption prioritizing placement with a parent.

The court found that the mother had taken substantial steps to address the society's concerns regarding alcohol use and exposure to domestic violence, including securing safe housing and engaging with culturally appropriate support services.

The society's motion was dismissed, and the children were ordered returned to the mother under a supervision order.

This is Part 3 of a trial decision concerning property and support issues.

The court addressed the mother's current income, section 7 expenses for the children, and spousal support calculations, following directions from a previous decision.

The father failed to provide requested financial information, leading the court to base its decision on the mother's submissions.

The court accepted the mother's calculations for section 7 expenses and spousal support, using gross amounts for spousal support.

The decision reconciled child and spousal support arrears, setting off amounts against equalization payment and occupational rent previously ordered, resulting in a net amount owed by the father to the mother.

Ongoing child and spousal support orders were made.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion under Rule 14(4.2) of the Family Law Rules prior to a case conference, seeking to address the respondent mother's relocation with their 20-month-old child.

The mother had moved from Ottawa to Brampton and subsequently ceased the agreed-upon week-about parenting schedule without providing the required 60 days' notice under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court granted the father leave to bring the motion, emphasizing that self-help remedies in child relocation are discouraged, and ordered the resumption of the week-about parenting schedule pending the full motion.

The moving party brought an interim motion to suspend his obligation to maintain life insurance as security for spousal support and to suspend enforcement of the support order by the Family Responsibility Office, pending his Motion to Change.

The moving party argued he was in poor health and unable to pay the increased insurance premiums or support.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the moving party had not provided full financial disclosure, particularly regarding $1 million in proceeds from a property sale, and had not sought a stay of the underlying support order.

The moving party was ordered to maintain $500,000 in life insurance, with the responding party paying half the premium pending the final determination.

The Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton applied for a secure treatment order for the child O.O., who consented to the placement.

The court, proceeding in writing due to COVID-19, reviewed the application under Part VII of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

It applied the six guiding principles for secure treatment applications, modified to reflect the child's consent.

The court found that all six criteria under s. 164(1) of the CYFSA were met, including O.O.'s mental disorder, recent and chronic self-harm/harm to others, the efficacy and availability of treatment at Roberts Smart Centre, and the lack of less restrictive alternatives.

The court granted the order for 180 days of secure treatment, emphasizing O.O.'s best interests and continuity of care.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for temporary care and custody of six children following their apprehension from the father's home.

The father had been experiencing severe mental health issues, including paranoia, and the home was found in a state of disarray with unsanitary conditions.

The mother, who also struggled with mental health issues, sought the return of the children but lacked suitable housing.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children would likely suffer harm if returned to either parent at this time.

The children were ordered to remain in the temporary care and custody of the Society, with supervised access granted to both parents.

The respondent sought costs in the amount of $1,412.50 for time spent arguing a contested adjournment of a case conference scheduled for March 30, 2012.

The respondent contended that the applicant's counsel provided insufficient notice of his unavailability due to vacation and that the case conference should have proceeded.

The court declined to award costs against the applicant's counsel personally or against the applicant, finding that although an error in judgment occurred, the case conference was not a wasted appearance as temporary access minutes were negotiated and executed.

The court held that each party should bear their own costs.

The applicant father brought a motion to change the primary residence of his 12-year-old son from the respondent mother's home to his own.

The child had consistently expressed a strong desire to live with his father for almost three years.

The court found that the mature adolescent's clear and consistent wishes constituted a material change in circumstances.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the court granted the motion, allowing the child to relocate to the father's primary care while maintaining joint custody and generous access for the mother.

A motion by the father for a change in primary residence of the child from the mother to the father.

The child, age 12, had consistently expressed a desire to live with his father for nearly three years.

The court found that the child's clear, consistent, and mature wishes constituted a material change in circumstances.

After applying the best interests analysis under the Children's Law Reform Act, the court granted the motion, permitting the child to move to the father's primary residence while maintaining joint custody and liberal access for the mother.

The court emphasized the importance of respecting a mature adolescent's autonomous decision-making capacity.